By Jon Rappoport
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them…”
Many people are unaware that in 1986 Congress gave the U.S. vaccine industry a shield from product liability that is unlike any other in existence. In most cases, if a pharmaceutical product injures or kills a person, the manufacturer of that product can be held financially accountable in a civil court of law. With vaccines, however, this is not the case.
In the U.S., there is a federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) that Congress created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
The VICP was created 30 years ago as an administrative alternative to a lawsuit when federally licensed vaccines recommended for children cause injury or death. Federal compensation was supposed to be awarded when there was no other biologically plausible explanation for the vaccine-related injury or death, and plaintiffs denied federal compensation or offered too little were supposed to be able to access civil courts.
However, in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled that federally licensed vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” and completely removed liability from the vaccine industry — even if it could be proven that a manufacturer had the ability to make the vaccine less reactive.
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington handles vaccine injury and death cases contested by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice in what has become known as “vaccine court.” The federal VICP compensates vaccine victims through a federal trust fund that collects a surcharge on every dose of vaccine purchased and administered, which means that vaccine manufacturers pay nothing into the vaccine injury trust fund even though they have no product liability.
To add insult to injury, government agencies and the U.S. Court of Claims deny federal compensation to the majority of vaccine-injured plaintiffs. As noted by the National Vaccine Information Center’s Barbara Loe Fisher at the Revolution for Truth Rally earlier this year:
“The $3.6 billion in federal vaccine injury compensation that has been awarded to more than 5,000 vaccine victims since 1988 doesn’t begin to pay for the damage done; not when two out of three claims are denied.”
A recent ruling by the highest court of the European Union, however, could change the vaccine injury compensation landscape — in Europe, at least — and the ruling has the vaccine industry up in arms over potentially being held financially accountable in European civil courts for illnesses and injuries caused by government recommended and mandated vaccines.
EU Court Rules Circumstantial Evidence Should Be Considered in Vaccine Injury Cases
In many vaccine injury cases, it can be difficult if not impossible to prove cause and effect and directly link a related injury with the vaccine, in part because such injuries may occur days, weeks or months later and also because the quality and quantity of vaccine safety studies is extremely poor. Vaccine companies and government health agencies have refused to conduct methodologically sound research into how and why vaccines cause harm and who is biologically at greater risk for being harmed.
In 2012, the Institute of Medicine (IOM), recently renamed Health and Medicine Division of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), appointed a physician committee to review over 1,000 vaccine studies on eight vaccines routinely administered to children. For more than 100 adverse health outcomes reported following vaccination, IOM was unable to determine whether or not the vaccines caused a commonly reported brain or immune system disorder.1
In short, the quality and quantity of the scientific evidence related to a wide range of brain and immune system disorders was insufficient to make a conclusion about whether or not a vaccine causes those disorders in a previously healthy person or a person biologically susceptible to vaccine harm.
So the IOM committee was unable to confirm or deny causation for most reported poor health outcomes, such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, learning disabilities and autism, following receipt of certain vaccines. This does not exonerate vaccines as being safe, but rather highlights the challenges faced when a person attempts to prove a causative link between a vaccine they’ve received and a related illness or injury.
It makes common sense that the circumstances surrounding a vaccine-related illness — such as how soon reaction symptoms began following vaccine administration, or whether the person had suffered a previous vaccine reaction or was sick at the time of vaccination and so on — would be essential pieces of evidence to consider in determining probable cause. However, few civil courts have taken this kind of clinical and circumstantial evidence seriously in vaccine injury lawsuits.
This was the case with a man living in France, whose vaccine injury case is still ongoing. The man developed multiple sclerosis after receiving three doses of hepatitis B vaccine, and he and his family believe the debilitating chronic disease was caused by the vaccination. Much of the case was based on circumstantial evidence including the timing of the onset of disease in relation to vaccination.
A lower French court ruled that the hepatitis B vaccination was the probable cause of the man’s multiple sclerosis, but that lower court decision was subsequently overturned because of a lack of scientific consensus that hepatitis B vaccine causes multiple sclerosis. Eventually, the courts needed to decide what types of evidence were admissible in the case, which brought it before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the highest court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).2
EU Court Ruling May Hold More Vaccine Makers Accountable
The ECJ ruled that “serious, specific and consistent” circumstantial evidence may be considered in vaccine injury cases, prompting a barrage of criticism from the pharmaceutical industry, doctors, public health officials and the media that it would “open the floodgates” for frivolous vaccine injury lawsuits. In Nature magazine, however, Alex Stein, a law expert at the Brooklyn Law School in New York says this is not the case:3
“The court emphasized that liability claims for vaccine harm must be considered on a case-by-case basis. It also ruled that the burden of proof remained on plaintiffs (the man’s family, in this case) and that courts must consider relevant evidence from medical research.
These caveats are important, says … Stein … ‘Under this framework, credible medical evidence showing that the vaccine is safe will win the case,’ he says. ‘Those who say that the ECJ decision has opened a floodgate for multiple vaccine liability suits are therefore mistaken.'”
Stein continued that the ruling may, in fact, allow for justice to be fairly served, noting, “If courts were to use scientific methods of proof in all cases in which they must determine disputed facts, they would hardly be able to make decisions and to deliver timely justice to people. Justice is generally best served when courts are free to admit whatever relevant evidence they wish and judge it on its own merits along with the rest.”4
Indeed, the EU ruling will allow for important and pertinent evidence to be considered in vaccine injury cases to conclude “the administering of the vaccine is the most plausible explanation,” including the following:5
•The time between a vaccine’s administration and the onset of a disease
•An individual’s previous state of health
•A lack of any family history of the disease
•A significant number of reported cases of the disease occurring following vaccination
Flu Vaccine Falsely Advertised as Good Match Completely Useless for Seniors
It’s incredibly important for vaccine makers to be held accountable for dangerous or ineffective products in civil court. As we continue to see, there are more questions than answers when it comes to vaccine safety and repercussions to human immunity and overall health. The case of federally recommended annual flu shots is one such example in which reactive and often ineffective vaccines continue to be foisted on a vulnerable population, in this case the elderly.
As recently as February 2017, U.S health officials boasted that this season’s influenza vaccine was a “good match,” even though the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) described the vaccine as having a 48 percent effectiveness rate, which means the vaccine was effective in preventing disease only 48 percent of the time.
For the past decade, the seasonal influenza vaccine’s effectiveness has been only 50 percent to 60 percent effective.6 The news that this year’s influenza vaccine was a “good match” probably prompted more seniors to get one of the 145 million doses of flu vaccine shipped to doctors’ offices and public health clinics.7
By June 2017, however, the CDC’s tune had changed. The vaccine actually did a poor job of protecting the elderly, with a low 42 percent effectiveness rate overall in preventing illness severe enough to cause someone to visit a doctor. Meanwhile, among the 65 and over crowd — who are at higher risk for influenza complications — as well as those aged 18 to 49, the flu shot “had no clear effect.”8 In other words, it was useless.
Every vaccine carries a risk of injury or death that can be greater for some people, and the potential risk of suffering flu vaccinecomplications that result in a permanent disability such as paralysis from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) is a risk you need to take into account each time you get a flu shot. While death and complete disability from influenza vaccine complications may be rare, severe complications and death from seasonal influenza itself are also relatively rare, especially for individuals with healthy immune systems.
So it is wise to weigh the risk of suffering a debilitating side effect from a flu shot relative to the more likely potential of spending a week in bed recovering from a bout with influenza. Most of the deaths attributed to influenza are actually due to complications leading to bacterial pneumonia and, unlike in past centuries, bacterial pneumonia today can be effectively treated with advanced medical care.
More Polio Spread by Vaccine
Another issue often disregarded in discussions of vaccine safety is the spread of vaccine-strain virus infections, including polio. Wild type polio was declared eradicated in the US in 1979 and in the western hemisphere in 1994.9 But despite widespread annual polio vaccine campaigns targeting children in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, the wild type poliovirus is still circulating.
The Global Polio Eradication Initiative slated 2018 as the year polio would be eradicated from the Earth, but the virus is proving to be harder to outwit than officials would have you believe. Not only are strains of wild poliovirus still circulating in the world, but mutated vaccine-strain polio viruses also circulate. A large part of the problem is the polio vaccine itself, specifically the live oral polio vaccine (OPV).
In 2017, there have been 21 reported cases of vaccine-derived polio, compared to six cases of wild polio — marking the first time more cases of polio have been caused by vaccine-derived strains than wild or naturally occurring strains. In Syria alone, 15 children have been paralyzed by vaccine-derived polio, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).10 Research published in the journal Cell also revealed that the live virus used in the oral polio vaccine can easily mutate and spread through a community.11 NPR reported:12
“After a child is vaccinated with live polio virus, the virus replicates inside the child’s intestine and eventually is excreted. In places with poor sanitation, fecal matter can enter the drinking water supply and the virus is able to start spreading from person to person.
‘We discovered there’s only a few [mutations] that have to happen and they happen rather quickly in the first month or two post-vaccination,” [lead study author Raul] Andino says. ‘As the virus starts circulating in the community, it acquires further mutations that make it basically indistinguishable from the wild-type virus. It’s polio in terms of virulence and in terms of how the virus spreads.'”
While news that the oral polio vaccine is causing vaccine-strain polio cases may be surprising to you, it is not surprising at all to WHO, whose director of polio eradication Michel Zaffran called the vaccine-derived virus outbreaks an expected “hiccup.” He told NPR:13
“We knew that we were going to have such outbreaks. We’ve had them in the past. We continue to have them now. We know how to find them, and we know how to interrupt them … So it’s hiccup … a very regrettable hiccup for the poor children that have been paralyzed, of course. But with regards to the whole initiative, you know it’s not something that is unexpected.”
Into the Darkness: Most Medical Science Is Fake
Adding to the complexity surrounding the medical decisions you make for yourself and your children is the fact that much scientific research is manipulated or fraudulent. Former New England Journal of Medicine editor-in-chief Dr. Marcia Angell has stated, “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical researchthat is published.”14
In the video above, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson interviews Angell on the topic of “fake science.” Angell says, “… [P]hysicians and the public have come to believe that drugs are much better and much safer than they really are.”15 If you can’t trust the scientific data, neither can your physician, but most people make health care decisions based on their physician’s likely misguided advice.
In the case of vaccines, for example, many are not aware that the U.S. childhood vaccination schedule is based on convenience, not on safety. While your physician may tell you that giving your child multiple vaccines simultaneously is safe, think about this logically. According to Neil Z. Miller, a medical research journalist and director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute:
“The CDC’s immunization schedule requires that children receive eight vaccines at 2 months of age, eight vaccines at 4 months of age and eight vaccines at 6 months of age. I ask parents, ‘When did you ever take eight drugs at the same time?
… If you did take eight drugs at the same time, would you think it was more likely that you would or would not have an adverse reaction?’ Because toxicologists know that the more drugs you take at the same time, the more potential for some kind of a synergistic or additive toxicity …
The CDC has put together a schedule based on convenience. They say ‘[G]ive eight vaccines at 2 months, give eight more vaccines at 4 months and give eight more booster shots at 6 months’ because it’s convenient. They’re afraid that parents will not come to the pediatrician again and again and again if they have to keep coming back for more vaccines, so they get multiple [shots all at once].
They said, ‘We’re going to make this schedule based on convenience.’ Not based on evidence. Not based on science. There’s nothing scientific about the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule.”
It’s therefore crucially important to consider multiple sources of vaccine information and use reason, intuition and common sense when making an educated decision about vaccination. Only when you have all the facts, including those from unbiased, independent sources, and think critically can you make a truly informed decision for yourself or your child that will protect your health.
by Jon Rappoport
May 9, 2017
The drug was approved, by the FDA, for public use in 1993, to treat schizophrenia, a “mental disorder” for which there is no defining diagnostic test. No blood test, no saliva test, no brain scan, no genetic assay.
In 2006, the FDA approved Risperdal to treat “irritability” in autistic children. There is no defining diagnostic test for autism. The neurological damage involved can come from any cause—especially vaccines. But of course, all public health agencies deny this fact.
In 2007, the FDA approved Risperdal to treat bipolar disorder in children between the ages of 10 and 17. Bipolar is another “mental disorder” for which there is no defining diagnostic test.
Risperdal was approved to treat three conditions, which are diagnosed by casually observing a patient’s behavior and comparing it to a menu of behaviors called schizophrenia, bipolar, and autism.
If the drug had no adverse effects, that would be one thing; but it has devastating effects. Tardive dyskinesia, a permanent “movement disorder” that signals brain damage. Suicide. Gynecomastia—boys grow female breasts.
Before I go on, NOTE: Rapid withdrawing from psychiatric drugs can have disastrous effects. See Dr. Peter Breggin on this subject.
Now let’s get to the lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson, Risperdal’s manufacturer:
2012: J&J fined $1.2 billion for hiding adverse effects of the drug. Decision overturned on appeal.
2012: J&J paid out $181 million for actively promoting off-label uses for Risperdal. Doctors are permitted to prescribe a drug for unapproved uses, but drug companies cannot legally promote or urge doctors to wander into that off-label territory.
2015-2016: There are at least 1500 suits against J&J for causing boys to grow female breasts. Thus far, three verdicts have been decided in favor of the boys, for $1.75 million, $2.5 million, and $70 million.
The story of Risperdal expands and explodes when we consider the marketing effort behind it. Basically, the hustle involved claims that the drug could be used to treat a wide array of so-called disorders in children.
I will now quote extensively from a classic article written at madinamerica.com, by Paula J Caplan, PhD. The title of her article (10/30/2015) is “Diagnosisgate: A Major Media Blackout Mystery”:
“Until their identities are widely exposed, and their motives are known, the full story of the [Risperdal] harm will never be known. It is astonishing that despite six stories in the major media – including a recent, groundbreaking Huffington Post series – and the filing of numerous lawsuits, the names and conduct of the culprits have consistently been omitted.”
“The story that has been called ‘Diagnosisgate’ starts in 1995, when the man widely considered the world’s most important psychiatrist split a payoff of nearly one million dollars with two colleagues in exchange for doing two patently unethical and illegal things that created the groundwork for a major drug company to market falsely one of the most dangerous psychoactive drugs [Risperdal].”
“Part one: In return for almost half a million dollars, they ignored what was known about the drug [Risperdal] in order to manufacture a practice guideline holding up that drug as the best drug among two whole classes of related drugs for treating people who were classified as ‘schizophrenic,’ the other drugs being marketed by other drug companies. This created what is widely considered the ‘standard of care,’ the treatment that therapists are supposed to follow and that they can use in the knowledge that they are well protected from lawsuits if they follow it and their patients are harmed. The very foundation of the guideline, that it was about ‘Schizophrenia,’ is illegitimate, because – though this will surprise many people – that category has been shown to be unscientifically created and indeed has been called a wastebasket for a wide variety of feelings and behavior, many of which are caused by psychiatric drugs.”
“Part two: After the triumvirate received a bonus of $65,000 for creating the guideline [‘treat schizophrenia with Risperdal’] speedily, their top psychiatrist wrote to the same drug company, announcing that the three had constituted themselves as an entity that was prepared, in return for about another half million dollars, to create a marketing plan for the drug. The details included finding ‘key opinion leaders’ (KOLs), who were prominent professionals in powerful positions – such as heads of state mental health or prison systems – and having them teach the Continuing Education courses that professionals are required to take, the ultimate message of those courses being that that particular drug [Risperdal] was the best one to prescribe. Another section of their marketing plan was to have a great many articles published in what are considered scientific or medical journals, all concluding that that drug was effective and should be prescribed.”
“It is not clear whether the three psychiatrists were directly involved in choosing the content of the journal articles, but the plan to produce such articles was carried out, leading to publication of pieces recommending use of the drug [Risperdal] to treat not only Schizophrenia but also Childhood Onset Schizophrenia, Schizo-affective Disorder, Bipolar Disorder in Children and Adults, Mania, Autism, Pervasive Developmental Disorder other than Autism, Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Psychosis, Aggression Agitation, Dementia, below average IQ, and disruptive behavior. Thus, a staggering array of psychiatric categories – many of which are as scientifically sketchy as Schizophrenia – was used to promote the drug. This massive marketing campaign proceeded despite the many major negative effects of Risperdal, including drowsiness, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, heartburn, dry mouth, increased saliva production, increased appetite, weight gain, stomach pain, anxiety, agitation, restlessness, difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep, decreased sexual interest or ability, vision problems, muscle or joint pain, dry or discolored skin, difficulty urinating, muscle stiffness, confusion, fast or irregular pulse, sweating, unusual and uncontrollable movements of face or body, faintness, seizures, Parkinsonian symptoms such as slow movements or shuffling walk, rash, hives, itching, difficulty breathing or swallowing, gynecomastia in male children, painful erection of penis lasting for hours…and death.”
“Who are the characters in this mystery? Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a division of Johnson & Johnson, is the drug company, and Risperdal is the drug in question. The marketing term for Risperdal and similar drugs is ‘anti-psychotic,’ but the accurate term is ‘neuroleptic,’ reflecting the mechanism of suppressing the brain’s activity as a powerful tranquilizer. Dr. David Rothman, who wrote the expert witness report for one of the lawsuits about the marketing of Risperdal, revealed after scrupulous examination of vast numbers of internal emails between Janssen staff and the representative of the three psychiatrists, is a specialist in medical ethics and the Bernard Schoenberg Professor of Social Medicine at Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, the medical school of Columbia University. He is also director of the Center for the Study of Science and Medicine at Columbia and at the time of writing his expert witness report was president of the Institute on Medicine as a Profession. Rothman stated in his report that the [treatment] guidelines [for Risperdal] were constructed ‘in disregard of professional medical ethics and principles of conflict of interest,’ and that they ‘subverted scientific integrity, appearing to be a purely scientific venture when it was at its core, a marketing venture for Risperdal’.”
“The psychiatrist who spearheaded these [Risperdal marketing] efforts is Dr. Allen Frances, who the year before teaming with Janssen oversaw the publication of the fourth volume of the ‘Bible’ of hundreds of categories of mental illness, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, sales of which topped $100 million as a result of marketing by the lobby group called the American Psychiatric Association, which published it. By virtue of this position, he has been called the world’s most important psychiatrist. At the time, he was also Chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Duke University. The two psychiatrists who with Frances shared the nearly $1 million in payments from Janssen are Dr. John P. Docherty, who was then Professor and Vice Chairman of Psychiatry at Cornell University at the time, and Dr. David A. Kahn, who was Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University.”
“Now back to the mystery: Despite five individual stories in major media outlets in 2011, 2012, and 2014 about two huge Risperdal court cases filed by the state of Texas and joined by many other states, neither a single writer of any of these stories nor even the papers filed for the court cases named Frances, Docherty, or Kahn or described the fundamental roles played by their Practice Guideline and their marketing plan in the scandal. The mystery is deepened, because the authors of the media stories and the court documents did name and describe the roles of some of the KOLs [key opinion leaders], who assuredly were guilty of unethical conduct but whose participation was conceived of by Frances and his colleagues. And some of those who reaped huge financial profits from Risperdal’s false marketing – most notably Harvard University’s Dr. Joseph Biederman, who created an empire based on claims that ‘Bipolar Disorder in Children’ had been woefully underdiagnosed and untreated – have been royally outed for the enormous sums they earned. But even respected investigative journalist Steve Brill, who recently completed a unique, 15-part story of the Risperdal scandal for Huffington Post, and who described in detail many of its players and some of the patients who suffered terrible harm from the drug and who elegantly described the way that Janssen covered up data about some of the harm, left out the essential roles the Frances triumvirate played. Activist Vera Sharav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection published an online article about the Rothman Report and included the names of Frances and those two colleagues, her article was apparently picked up by only two or three bloggers and none of the major media reporters who read what she posts.”
There is more. Much more. I suggest you read Caplan’s entire article. In a half-sane world, she would have been awarded the highest possible honors for her work.
Risperdal. The long and winding trail. The severe damage. The hustle, the con. The crimes.
The lack of criminal prosecutions.
Brought to you by high authorities in the psychiatric profession and their allies.
A public revolt against the drugs and the pushers is necessary to stem the tide of poisoning.
(Note: for the links to the sources for this story, click here.)
“The bigger the lie, the bigger the truth it is concealing. The truth is what people are afraid to accept.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
The censored film, Vaxxed (trailer), has escaped the claws of the “protectors of all truth.” It has been showing to packed houses all over the country. It relates the specific crime of scientific fraud at the CDC. A whistleblower, William Thompson, confesses that he and his CDC colleagues lied and cheated and omitted vital data, in order to give the MMR vaccine a free pass and claim it had no connection to autism—when it did have a connection.
That’s the purpose and meaning and focus of this astonishing film.
But there is more. There are other whistleblowers shining a light on the MMR (mumps, measles, rubella) vaccine. Specifically, the mumps component of the vaccine and its ineffectiveness.
Their names are Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlochowski. They’re former virologists at Merck. They’re insiders. They’ve leveled devastating charges against the company, which manufactures the MMR vaccine and sells it to the federal government.
In 2010, the whistleblowers filed a suit against Merck. The suit drags on in court (“UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al. v. MERCK & CO.,” Case No. 2:10-cv-04374-CDJ).
The Huffington Post reports on the charges in the suit (“Merck Has Some Explaining To Do Over Its MMR Vaccine Claims,” 9/24/2014, updated: 11/27/2014):
“…former Merck scientists [claim] that Merck ‘fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine in violation of the FCA [False Claims Act].’”
“According to the whistleblowers’ court documents, Merck’s misconduct was far-ranging: It ‘failed to disclose that its mumps vaccine was not as effective as Merck represented, (ii) used improper testing techniques, (iii) manipulated testing methodology, (iv) abandoned undesirable test results, (v) falsified test data, (vi) failed to adequately investigate and report the diminished efficacy of its mumps vaccine, (vii) falsely verified that each manufacturing lot of mumps vaccine would be as effective as identified in the labeling, (viii) falsely certified the accuracy of applications filed with the FDA, (ix) falsely certified compliance with the terms of the CDC purchase [of the MMR vaccine] contract, (x) engaged in the fraud and concealment described herein for the purpose of illegally monopolizing the U.S. market for mumps vaccine, (xi) mislabeled, misbranded, and falsely certified its mumps vaccine, and (xii) engaged in the other acts described herein to conceal the diminished efficacy of the vaccine the government was purchasing.’”
“These fraudulent activities, say the whistleblowers, were designed to produce test results that would meet the FDA’s requirement that the mumps vaccine was 95 per cent effective. To the whistleblowers’ delight, the judge dismissed Merck’s objections to the case proceeding, finding the whistleblowers had plausible grounds on all of the claims lodged against Merck.”
The whistleblowers’ charges include detailed specifics on how Merck cheated, in order to produce the false conclusion that the mumps component of the MMR vaccine was 95% effective. For example, Merck placed rabbit antibodies into blood samples—pretending these were human antibodies signaling a high level of immune response to the vaccine.
It should be noted that this far-reaching charge of fraud covers years during which Dr. Julie Gerberding was the president of Merck vaccines.
Why does this matter? Because Gerberding, before landing her high-paying job at Merck, was the head of the US Centers for Disease Control.
And while she was the head of the CDC, in 2004, William Thompson, the CDC whistleblower revealed in Vaxxed,warned Gerberding that he had “sensitive” data about the MMR vaccine, and these data constituted a problem for the CDC.
Thompson was obviously talking about the vaccine’s link to autism. Gerberding ignored Thompson.
You could say she doubled down. After leaving the CDC, she became president of vaccines for Merck, the company that manufactures the MMR vacccine, holds a monopoly on it, and sells it to the CDC.
—So when scientists, pundits, government officials, and other “experts” ponder how, at Harvard, a recent mumps outbreak could have affected previously vaccinated students, they’re faking it.
Even within the (false) conventional view of how vaccines work and what they do, the mumps component of the MMR is a dud. It’s been an open secret for a long time.
And now two Merck whistleblowers are lowering the boom in court.
The US Justice Department wants nothing to do with this case. Neither does the US Congress. Inside the federal government, there are blind eyes everywhere.
If the government actively pursued the case, among other revelations, the public would witness Dr. Julie Gerberding, former head of the CDC, president of Merck vaccines, being raked over the coals on the witness stand.
That must never happen.
If you think, while the case drags on, there is any effort to curtail the use of the vaccine, or investigate it, think again. The judge in the case has set a timetable which places the start of courtroom proceedings in…
The implementation of a pentavalent (5 actives in one vaccine) into the Indian health system has caused great concern, especially since “Every few days one more child dies after receiving the pentavalent vaccine… Yet as these deaths mount, it has been announced that pentavalent vaccine is to be introduced in 3 more states…” 
The five-in-one vaccine contains actives for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hepatitis B, and Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib). It seems that the hepatitis B active is questioned as not being protective of infections in babies. How interesting! As a result, parents are refusing to have their children vaccinated, while vaccination rates have fallen off dramatically—25 percent in the last four years.
Ten Indian health experts, Dr Amitav Banerjee, Dr Arun Gupta, Dr BM Hegde, Dr JP Dadhich, Dr Jacob Puliyel, Dr KP Kushwaha, Dr Ritu Priya, Dr SK Mittal, Dr S Srinivasan and Dr Vikas Bajpai, wrote a letter to the Indian PMO (Property Management Officer)  wherein they stated that
The study conducted by the Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, and the National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad and two editorials in the journal (Indian Paediatrics) raised several questions regarding the universal immunization programme (UIP) itself. Dr T Jacob John in his editorial noted that the frequency of chronic infection was similar in both the unvaccinated and the vaccinated – about 0.15%. The Hepatitis B vaccine was thus completely useless in this population. Professor Jacob John further observed that the immunological and epidemiological outcomes of rolling out Hib are not being monitored as UIP has no capacity for that function. [CJF emphasis]
And concluded with:
In short, expensive vaccines that have little utility are being rolled out without monitoring benefits or harms and which are causing deaths and serious adverse effects. As a result, inspite of official attempts at denial, the public are losing trust in the entire immunization programme. [CJF emphasis]
Those ten health experts expressed concern and questioned what many other health professionals globally ask about: Transparency within the organization in India that gives the green light for vaccine use in India. India, I offer, is neither unique nor alone regarding the transparency issue. From my research into vaccines and its politics for decades, every country relies upon the U.S. CDC/FDA pseudoscience regarding vaccines and that has to stop, especially when so much scientific fraud regarding vaccines not producing autism or other adverse health effects are trashed, minimized, or withheld deliberately from health agencies and the public. That, in my opinion, is unmitigated FRAUD!
One of the doctors, Jacob Puliyel, raised the issue of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s involvement and conflict of interest! Seems the Gates Foundation is involved in many of the problems in foreign countries’ vaccine programs. I wonder why. Several years ago in India, 47,500 children were paralyzed, plus some deaths, after receiving the Gates Foundation oral polio vaccine  as reported in2013. And still, government officials haven’t learned a lesson about vaccines’ ability to harm!
Regarding the hepatitis B vaccine, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) conducted a benefits received study in 2014 and found that after ten years of children receiving the hepatitis B vaccine there were no differences between children who received the vaccine and those who did not! The only difference, I might add, is that those who received the hepatitis B vaccine may find that there may be long-term health effects like:
- Autoimmune inflammatory polyneuropathy
- Multiple sclerosis
- Chronic arthritis
- Bell’s palsy 
Anaphylactic shock and death in infants, though, are more immediate reactions, which sometimes prompt doctors to suspect and accuse parents or caregivers of physical abuse or Shaken Baby Syndrome.
It seems Indian health officials question the efficacy of the Hib vaccine and performed several studies including a probe study and found that “The vaccinated kids reported more pneumonia cases, says Dr Puliyel. The same study was repeated in Bangladesh with similar results.” That, I offer, is not unusual, as vaccinated children make up the higher percentage of those contracting diseases for which they have been vaccinated. That’s been proven in various demographics taken in the United States, too.
Here’s what’s sounding alarm bells for everyone in India:
Now the issue was not just of relevance but of risk to children in being given a mixture of five vaccines in a single shot or the pentavalent vaccine. Three deaths were reported in Sri Lanka when the pentavalent vaccine was introduced there. Here, the deaths were probably caused by the vaccine as no other reasons were found, said critics like Dr Puliyel. Experts seemed to have flouted the standard norms of classification of adverse events following vaccinations. This was exposed in a paper published by the critics group in the British Medical Journal.
Hence, when it was introduced in India in 2011 it was restricted only to one state, Kerala. In the first year, at least 12 deaths were reported in vaccinated children, beginning with a death of a healthy child on the first day itself.  [CJF emphasis]
Interestingly, Indian health activists cite a German study, the TOKEN study, wherein “they say has shown that the hexavalent vaccine (a six-in-one vaccine) results in sudden unexplained deaths of children within 48 hours of vaccination.”
Furthermore, the TOKEN study also found “that deaths could be explained by other reasons like maternal smoking or over-heating of the environment. It said there was no increased risk of sudden death within one week after hexavalent vaccination.” Question: Weren’t those risks prevalent before the children were vaccinated and they still lived, but coincidentally died within one week after a hexavalent vaccination?
The vaccine problem in India has caused concern for health officials since vaccination rates are going down, something they don’t want, but which parents obviously do. Professor Dr Jacob John points out that
[T]he immunisation programme in our country is as flawed as the rest of the healthcare programmes. It is divorced from preventive healthcare or public healthcare which would mean monitoring disease, its causes and prevention. The way we immunise children in India leaves much to be desired, as pointed out by Dr Jacob Puliyel. Immunisation is for disease prevention, but in India MoH does not monitor if vaccines are preventing diseases in the community. For that ‘public health surveillance’ has to be practised, but India does not follow that principle. In India healthcare and immunisation are like a set of rituals with no basis in reason. 
Immunization a ritual with no basis in reason is a good way of describing what many would call the ‘religious belief dogma of vaccinology,’ which states dogmatically that vaccines are safe regardless of the fact that no study ever has been undertaken, either retrospectively or ongoing, on the interaction and/or adverse events of multi-valent vaccine actives in one vaccination and giving as many as nine vaccines at one time to a less than 25 pound infant!
Dr Puliyel sums vaccine programs not only in India, but for elsewhere, when he claims,
We do not have a programme for ‘control of childhood communicable diseases’, while we have a robust vaccine delivery platform, giving vaccines as rituals, without accurately measuring the outcome and carefully documenting every case of vaccine failure.
The point is that the Indian health ministry leaders are either incredibly stupid or absolutely compassionless. Could be both. 
I second Dr Puliyel’s comments; they apparently can be applied to every country that blindly implements mass vaccination programs by following the U.S. CDC/FDA’s ostensible Big Pharma vested interest influences and federal agency mandates. Some countries, after experiencing the adverse health effects of the HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccines, officially do not recommend the HPV vaccines. India and Japan have suspended HPV vaccination recommendations. 
It’s time for a real evaluation of the poisoned needles.
http://csis.org/files/publication/140514_Wilson_HPVVaccination_Web.pdf Pg. 15
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.
Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.
Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.
Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick(2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)