Update links 13 April 2017
It is amazing that there are still no scientific papers showing efficacy nor the safety of vaccine ingredients. Mercury and aluminium are known neurotoxins. There are also no scientific papers showing the interaction of multiple vaccines at the same time, yet we know many medications cannot be mixed. This alone is very telling in the motives of vaccinations - it is not a scientific argument - there is none, but a political one of money!
Astounding is the recent CDC statement on breast feeding...
"Ten researchers from the CDC’s National Centers for Immunization and Respiratory Disease (NCIRD) released a paper arguing that because the immune-boosting effects of breastmilk inhibit the effects of the live oral rotavirus vaccine, nursing mothers should delay breastfeeding their infants.
This, dear readers, is the kind of convoluted logic that permeates the pharmaceutical industry. To be fair, the paper does not recommend that mothers stop breastfeeding, merely that they delay nursing at the time that the vaccine is administered. It also says that other avenues for boosting the vaccine’s efficacy should be explored.
Honestly, I don’t care how nuanced their recommendation is. Do they not realize what they have stumbled upon? In demonstrating that breastmilk counters the live vaccine, they’ve shown that breastmilk counters the virus."
Of note is that on many vaccines this link with autism has finally been acknowledged and appears as a side effect on many vaccine inserts!
The money motive is that big pharma has immunity from prosecution. Despite the billions paid out by the public through vaccine courts some have successfully gone through normal courts where courts have ruled the link between vaccines and autism.
Possible the worst, but this does show how desperate things are getting is the level of wilfull non disclosure by authorities as well as manufacturers, and now the pushing of forced vaccinations in many US states and Australia, and how basically the vaccinated are experimented on without informed consent - that was a crime against humanity in the Nuremburg trials following WWII!!!!!!. THIS SERIOUSLY BEGS THE QUESTION WHO OWNS YOUR BODY AND WHERE IS THAT AUTHORITY DERIVED FROM??????
ORIGINAL 21 June 2016
What I am presenting here is nothing new, and this information is available through hundreds of websites representing establishment - government, scientific and industry as well as private individuals who unfortunately in growing numbers are being labelled as extremists, and now even in many western democracies anti government so are subject to public demonization, treated as terrorists and in some cases many have mysteriously died!
Historical data is difficult to get and without data analysis becomes less objective and more subjective.
Vacinations - Common sense 101?? Do vaccines work as claimed -
The first two are very detailed and interesting sites with masses of information not only on this subject but also further related issues are where I have taken many of the following Images from.
Most data and images are actually derived for official government web sites:
The first thing that is blatantly obvious is that there had been over a 95% decrease of infectious diseases before the use of "modern vaccines" and antibiotics! Applying standard MAP Wave analysis to this data ....there is nothing out of the ordinary and if we had more data we could project if deaths by infectious diseases has bottomed, however from the warning lines a trend changed in the 70's leading to the low in the 80's, and the high into 1990's represents normal cyclical behaviour and from MAP Wave analysis I would expect a drop has occurred since that peak. This is purely cycle analysis based on energy transformation - nothing magic!
If you replace the actual number of death as % it reads something like this assuming 800 in 1900 = 100%, 1920 = 50%, 1940 = 25%, 1950 = 12.5%, 1960 = 6.25%, so even before vaccination really got underway something happened which resulted in reduced death rates by almost 95%. Breaking this down by infectious disease it looks as follows:
However when you add the numbers up these infectious diseases they account for under 40% of the first chart deaths. so over 60% of infectious diseases sorted themselves out! (These are rates per 1000 so multiply them by 100 to compare with the total chart previously shown which are per 100,000. 10+20+10+30+150+40+30+25=315)
They all follow a very similar pattern and one notable exception is the influenza where there was a pandemic in 1918, but again quickly reversed back to the trend and poliomyelitis which with such low numbers really is insignificant.
Looking at a few of the individual charts just shown, It is not hard to see the trend, as highlighted before if we look at percentages the dramatic decrease of some 95% actually occurred before vaccinations.
IMPORTANT OBSERVATION - Scarlet fever has never been vaccinated against and you can see it has followed the profile of all the other infectious diseases!
From CDC's education area they have the typical epidemic curve, this is a bell distribution curve which is about the commonest tool used to analyse data! Look at the graphs of epidemics shown and it is clear the death / infection rates show the same pattern - mother nature!
Overlaying this on the first graph showing the totals we can see that there is an obvious visible high correlation - very similar pattern following the same trends with the obvious outbreak caused by influenza in 1918 which in itself shows exactly the same trend!
So far it is pretty obvious from very basic maths and analysis that there is no evidence of vaccines playing any role in the control of the infectious diseases simply by looking at the problem in context - as much data as possible. Over 60% followed the same patterns and reduction in death numbers unaided by vaccines, and it would appear that vaccines did not alter the trend where they were used.
So looking at history and data, the conclusion that I have drawn that vaccines did not play a noticeaable role in this dramatic reduction of infectious diseases, the CDC itself confirms this in its document Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999 which puts this dramatic decrease in infectious disease deaths down to water quality improvements and general sanitation in food preparation and preservation from the early 1900's.
Smallpox is interesting for a number of reasons and is where modern vaccination has its roots and hence has the most data. From the graph below you can again see the correlation to the bell curve previously described.
In England free smallpox vaccines were introduced in 1840 and made compulsory in 1853. Ø Between 1857 and 1859 there were 14,244 deaths from smallpox. Between 1863 and 1865 after a population rise of 7%, the death rate rose by 40.8% to 20,059. Ø In 1867 evaders of vaccination were prosecuted. Those left unvaccinated were very few. Between 1870 and 1872 after a population rise of 9%, the death rate rose by 123% to 44,840.
We can see from the chart that the vaccination did not work, and you could even say that vaccines contributed to the increase in the number of deaths following the introduction of forced vaccinations after 1867 where deaths tripled from the 1876 low to the peak in 1882 leading to the obvious question do vaccinations actually increase death rates?
This observation is most likely correct as in Leicester from 1880 to 1908 vaccination was stopped and smallpox deaths declined! See Sanitation vs Vaccination. Water chlorination was introduced in UK n the 1850's and spread to Europe and the US by the late.
SMALLPOX FATALITY RATES, cases in vaccinated and re-vaccinated populations compared with “unprotected” Leicester – 1860 to 1908.
|Name.||Period.||Small-Pox. Cases||Small-Pox. Deaths.||Fatality-rate per cent. of Cases|
|British Army (United Kingdom)||1860-1908||1,355||96||7.1|
|British Army (India)||1860-1908||2,753||307||11.1|
|British Army (Colonies)||1860-1908||934||82||8.8|
|Grand Totals and case fatality rate per cent, over all||296,730||78,134||26.3|
|Leicester (since giving up vaccination)||1880-1908||1,206||61||5.1|
Biggs said “In this comparison, I have given the numbers of revaccinated cases, and deaths, and each fatality-rate separately and together, so that they may be compared either way with Leicester. In pro-vaccinist language, may I ask, if the excessive small-pox fatality of Japan, of the British Army, and of the Royal Navy, are not due to vaccination and revaccination, to what are they due? It would afford an interesting psychical study were we able to know to what heights of eloquent glorification Sir George Buchanan would have soared with a corresponding result—but on the opposite side.“
The link between infectious diseases and control were well understood in those times which we seem to have been forgotten!
Leicester is the only placebo, with 40 years data of no vaccinations, that I have been able to find where results are compared between vaccinated and unvaccinated samples, which is the normal scientific way of determining the effect of anything, which apparently is unethical and hence vaccines are not tested in a scientific manner!
This was the first evidence that vaccines actually kill people yet still to date pharmaceutical companies are not required to do placebo trials!
This is what the same simple cycle analysis shows for smallpox - by the 1970's it will have run its course.
Next look at the same data presented differently, which should show the dramatic reduction of death rate from measles vaccination..... and this is even on the log scale so should exaggerate the effectiveness of vaccination.....
The obvious "dramatic" drop is around 1990, but how can this be? From WHO age distribution and making the assumption that the age distribution is pretty globally applicable we would expect to see a lag of 6 to 10 years following vaccination that the rates will dramatically drop. They are shown by the green arrows and as you can see the trend was still following the red trend line - again showing vaccinations do not work.
To me the evidence shows:
- Simple analysis and observations of the scientific data presented has shown that infectious diseases follow similar patterns.
- Simple observation and analysis provide strong evidence that vaccinations are not effective in reducing infectious disease deaths. (no noticeable difference in the rate that 60% of non vaccinated diseases decline in the same manner as those vaccinated)
- Simple analysis and observation provide strong evidence vaccinations actually increases deaths. (smallpox data)
- There are no scientific trials carried out on vaccinations (if anyone has some please forward links)
Vaccinations - Common Sense 102?? Side Effects
I really do not have ot mention too much about this because the fact that both in the US and it is interesting how the influenza vaccine has amongst the highest succes rate for claims, and . the UK they have claims courts for vacination damageand paying out billions is fact enough! Incidently the tax payer pays for and not the pharmaceutical companies who make these poisons!!!!
So whats the fuss about?
Clearly there would not be such a hot debate if the facts are as presented by government. Surely if the case was so clear cut there would not be a need for forced vaccinations.
- There is growing evidence from all over the world that vaccinated people are getting infected which is rarely reported in the Western World. VacTruth has mountains of information and there are many others. There are a growing number of legal cases against Gates Foundation, WHO, PATH, GAVI, UNICEF, but again we do not hear of these in the Western media. There are hundreds of websites around the world that give independent information which like I have done above with a little basic analysis can quickly filter out the noise - we will always get extremists!
- Despite all the good intentions of the many organisations that push vaccination it is all done on hear say which appears to be stemming from the very organisations that are entrusted by the people to be looking after their best interest failing to fulfil their honourable intentions.
So how do they sell it to the public?
If it is this obvious to me then surely it must be obvious to many? So why no scientific studies to establish if they work or not would appear a pretty obvious starting point...... and this is the typical response.....
" It would be unethical and illegal to do such a study, as it would expose innocent children to severe risks of death or disability. You cannot simply pick random kids and sacrifice their lives on the altar of science, at least not in any country you would want to have diplomatic relations with."
So it would be unethical and illegal to do studies but it is OK to just give the vaccinations based on what then??? Never have I come across such a stupid justification!
So how do they sell it to the public so easily,,,, you only need to change a few little things and only tell half the story.... From the Greenbook on measles
Let us compare their graphs to the earlier on and get some context.
In context it is clear that there is no rationality either behind the vaccination agenda especially when you look at death and cases on the same chart. Graph below drawn from Actual figures of notifications and death from gov.uk for measles from 1940 (data is only available upto 2012?????? newer data returns server error 500! maybe it is getting a bit obvious?). I have highlighted the 1968, 1988, 1994 and 1996 vaccinations from the green book. Here you can see the scale and graph separate and note the numbers on the vertical scale to put into context the relative wow factor compared to the deaths per 100000.
When plotted on the same graph you can really see the effect of presenting the information the way the public is presented it! You cannot even see the line for death anymore and that is what was so obvious from the first chart I presented!
The whole vaccine scare is further exaggerated by the trusted universities. From the University of Oxfords - Oxford Vaccine Group marketing page.
From the above chart with both notifications and deaths the data set has the highest number of notifications in 1961 of 763531 notifications. At the time the population was 52.58 million! Assuming similar demographics gives an infection rate of under 1.5% so even the best medical education centres we have in the UK as opposed to the 90% infection rate they use in their example, and the complications are actually the light green ones you hardly see as opposed to the black ones your eyes are naturally drawn to!
Fear is the most effective way to control people and this is exactly what is done. Fear stops rational thinking and panic and that reduces peoples ability to make informed decisions. A 1.5% infection rate is not an epidemic let alone a pandemic and that is the worst measles has been to in the last 60 years!
MORE INCREDIBLE - they tell you it does not work if you search around a lot! (actually most articles showing the failure of vaccinations are deleted as they are pointed out. Thankfully with their filing structure it is obvious that this has been done. The least one would expect would be links to the scientific evidence that discredits the work which passed initial peer review! Alarm bells also should go off if it is 100% positive when you search.
The only known scientifically peer reviewed trial actually showed vaccinations not only don't work but actually cause TB as pointed out in the video below. This one must have slipped through the sensors as just about every article that offers a different opinion to vaccinations are good dogma is removed! BCG vaccination in India and tuberculosis in children: newer facets. It clearly states it did not work so when the sensors find this too will be removed from the public view.
This one slipped through the CDC censors and confirms immunity is not achieved by vaccination.... and the numbers are horrific!
The 33 case-patients ranged in age from 2 to 28 years (median: 16 years). Twenty-nine case-patients had received at least one dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV) at or after age 12 months; one person with laboratory-confirmed measles had received two appropriately spaced doses of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR). No serious complications or deaths were reported.The 33 case-patients ranged in age from 2 to 28 years (median: 16 years). Twenty-nine case-patients had received at least one dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV) at or after age 12 months; one person with laboratory-confirmed measles had received two appropriately spaced doses of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR). No serious complications or deaths were reported.
At the high school where the 17 cases occurred, based on school records, only one of 2186 students had not received at least one dose of MCV before the outbreak; 1057 (49%) had received one dose of MCV, and 1112 (51%) had received two or more doses. Estimated vaccine efficacy for two or more doses of MCV was 100%.
From this a good few statistics can be calculated. 1 of 2186 sample was not vaccinated. So nearly 0.8% of vaccinated people actually got infected where a totally un-vaccinated population has an extreme infection rate of 1.5%, and the lowest before vaccination started was 0.4%. Hmm...... makes one think.....
So we just give vaccinations because it would be unethical not to! Never have I seen such stupidity! But why do people buy into it? For that above I have shown with simple analysis it is incredibly dubious if there is any benefit, and if anything it would appear dangerous and ineffective. Are the risks really worth it without proper scientific validation?
It would be well worthwhile understanding where and how vaccinations come from so as to try understand why society has reached the conclusion that we give vaccinations because it would be unethical not to. This is the best video I have found and explains it better than I could hope to about the history of vaccinations and fundamentally how we got into this ludicrous situation (59 minutes)!
Next is a short clip (18 minutes) outlining how the profit motive is corrupting science and worse corrupting our governments and even worse the corruption of the regulatory bodies that are approving the use of vaccinations.
One final graph of concern...... have we just substituted low mortality infectious diseases with killer diseases resulting from vaccination........
Why not just do a scientifically valid experiment with representatives from both sides where the for vaccinations let their children be vaccinated and the against don't. From UK government statistics approximately 700,000 children are immunised by their 1st birthday and coverage is approximately 90% - so there surely must be a large enough statistically valid sample from which to gather data just by following one year group without having to fight about it! How long has this debate been going on? This is pure insanity!!!