Connecting Adverse Health

Events to Childhood Vaccines

by Jeremy James

This paper addresses the safety of childhood vaccines and the issues that
concerned parents and all true Christians should consider in the light of the
marked determination shown by the pharmaceutical industry to intensify
their use and, very possibly, to make them mandatory.

Disclaimer and Purpose

The author is not a qualified medical practitioner; neither does he possess any
professional qualification in the medical field. We are not giving medical
advice. Rather we are identifying the issues that parents and caregivers need
to consider when deciding whether or not to vaccinate a child.

In doing so we will address the role that vaccine programs are undoubtedly
going to play in shaping the New World Order. As a tool of social engineering,
they are a potential source of incredible power if used for a political purpose.

“Writing about vaccines is like traveling into the mythological

underworld where Hades rules. It is a dark and dismal realm
where innocent babies and their families are deeply traumatized.”
– Neil Z Miller, Medical Research Journalist

1
The vast majority of vaccines in use across the human population are designed,
manufactured and distributed by large corporations. These corporations
exercise enormous influence in the medical world but operate in accordance
with the same commercial considerations that define the way all large
corporations operate. These include the drive to generate profits, to expand
their markets, to increase their range of products, to ensure customer loyalty
and dependency, to suppress competition, to fix prices, to limit alternatives to
their products, to influence and control as far as possible the rules and
regulations which affect the manufacture and sale of their products, to satisfy
shareholders, and, overwhelmingly, to influence public opinion and
perception in all matters pertaining to the use, effective-ness, and safety of
their products.

PART ONE: The System is Broken

If pharmaceutical companies, in generic terms, do not differ in law from other
companies, then we cannot expect them to adhere to a higher standard of
ethics or to serve the public good. There is nothing altruistic about their
operational philosophy. Bear in mind, much the same stream of graduates
from Harvard business school and similar institutions run the pharmaceutical
companies as run the tobacco companies, the oil companies, and the big
casinos in Las Vegas.

2
For this reason alone, any sensible person ought to be wary of the power and
influence exercised by these profit-driven monoliths. The big tobacco
companies in the 1960s lied and lied, over and over again, to hide the damage
caused by their products. They knew their lies were directly responsible for
thousands of deaths annually of American citizens. It is irrational to expect
any other company, including a pharmaceutical company, to be incapable of
sliding into the same kind of moral malaise.

The Vioxx Scandal

We have already witnessed at least one startling example in recent years of
their capacity to lie and deceive. Vioxx was a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drug manufactured by Merck for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Released in
1999, it was prescribed about 80 million times worldwide before it was
withdrawn in 2004. During its short life it shortened many lives but earned
around $2.5 billion for Merck.
The problem with Vioxx, as Merck knew about a year after it was released,
was that it greatly increased the risk of heart attack and stroke. But they kept
it on the market and concealed evidence that it was killing large numbers of
healthy people. It later emerged that data from 21 studies had been fabricated
so that Merck could claim (falsely) that the drug had superior analgesic
properties. Furthermore pre-release trials had suggested that the drug might
possibly have adverse cardiovascular effects, but Merck failed to follow this
finding with more exhaustive studies. The FDA estimate that Vioxx killed over
60,000 people. This is more than the number of Americans who died in the
Vietnam War. The true figure may be even higher.

3
Pfizer
This kind of behavior is endemic across the industry. For example, Pfizer was
fined a staggering $2.3 billion in 2009 when they were found guilty of the
crime of misbranding a product, in this case an anti-inflammatory called
Bextra, with the intention of deliberately misleading the consumer. Bextra is
known to have caused a large number of deaths through heart attack and
stroke, but Pfizer did a better job than Merck in suppressing details of the
harm inflicted by their product. Like Merck, Pfizer also knew before it came
on the market that the drug could produce cardiovascular side-effects.

In an article published on 2 September 2009, the New York Times commented

as follows on the corporate culture within Pfizer:

“The government charged that executives and sales representatives

throughout Pfizer’s ranks planned and executed schemes to illegally
market not only Bextra but also Geodon, an antipsychotic; Zyvox,
an antibiotic; and Lyrica, which treats nerve pain.”

It also referred to an earlier instance of proven illegal activity at Pfizer:

“Much of the activities cited [in the government prosecution of

Pfizer and its marketing of Bextra] occurred while Pfizer was in the
midst of resolving allegations that it illegally marketed Neurontin,
an epilepsy drug for which the company in 2004 paid a $430 million
fine and signed a corporate integrity agreement – a company-wide
promise to behave.” [emphasis added]

4
It is unsettling to realize that Pfizer was actually required to sign an
agreement with the government authorities in 2004 to confirm that in future
its business activities would be conducted in compliance with the law! We
have here a measure of how irresponsible the pharmaceutical industry has
become when such ‘agreements’ are now necessary. Indeed, the NYT article
noted that “[Government] prosecutors said that they had become so alarmed
by the growing criminality in the industry that they had begun increasing fines
into the billions of dollars and would more vigorously prosecute doctors as
well.” (Note the word “criminality”.)

Why would they prosecute doctors as well? Because doctors assist with the
compilation of the research data on which the safety and efficacy of drugs is
assessed. Drug companies offer substantial inducements, both financial and
benefits-in-kind, to secure endorsements from doctors across the medical
profession, especially those who are known to have influence among their
peers or who submit papers to medical journals.

The Moral Dilemma

As we discuss the troubling world of vaccines we should never lose sight of
the fact that these potentially debilitating substances – which we are required
to inject on multiple occasions into our children – are made by corporations
with the same lamentable levels of honesty and integrity shown by Pfizer in
recent years, the same reckless disregard for the law, and the same obsession
with profit and market share. The scions of this illustrious industry then sneer
with contempt when we dare to ask reasonable questions about the safety of
their products!

5
Merck killed over 60,000 people with Vioxx. All of these deaths were
avoidable. This powerful corporation only had to act within the law to spare
the lives of these unfortunate individuals, but it didn’t. There were no
complicating factors to consider. The evidence was very straightforward.
Their product was killing fellow Americans but they kept it on the market for
several years after they knew beyond all doubt that it was toxic. None of the
managers responsible have been prosecuted and sent to prison. The
government only requires that, where corporate giants misbehave – or commit
a grotesque crime, as in this case – they need only pay a fine. That’s it. A fine.

Two Major Problems (not just one)

So we have two major problems here, not one. In addition to the potential
criminal misconduct of the pharmaceutical companies, we are faced with the
abject failure, at both state and federal level, to hold anyone responsible for
the systematic unlawful killing of innocent people. This second problem is
every bit as serious as the first.

The public has two main forms of institutional protection with regard to
vaccine safety. The first is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is
responsible for approving vaccines for public use and setting conditions as to
how they are used, and the Center for Disease Control and Protection (CDC),
which compiles detailed statistics on public health, including the role played
by vaccines in maintaining public health and preventing the spread of disease.
Thus the FDA is concerned mainly with events leading up to the introduction
of a new drug, while the CDC is concerned with the impact that pharmaceutical
products are having on the health of the general population.

However, both the FDA and the CDC are under government control. This
means they are part of the same administrative apparatus which finds no-one
guilty when thousands of innocent people are killed by defective products. If
the manufacturers are able to secure immunity from prosecution simply by
paying a corporate fine, then there is little incentive for either the FDA or the
CDC to focus on those parts of their remit that deal with corporate liability
and possible criminal conduct.

6
On top of this, we know that many of the senior executives in these two
organizations are recruited from bodies and corporations with ties to the
pharmaceutical industry. Some even return to the industry after a period of
service with the FDA or the CDC. So, in addition to the absence of any clear
incentive to detect and expose criminal behavior, these organizations are
hampered – if not emasculated – by serious conflicts of interest.

So who is protecting the general public?

So who is protecting the general public? If a defective vaccine was in use, at
what stage would it be recalled? How many children would have to die or
suffer damage to their health before the pharmaceutical company concerned,
the CDC, or the FDA decided to act? 100,000? More? Who knows. That’s the
problem. We have no confidence that they would ever act in time to prevent
unnecessary deaths and injuries. Indeed, we have no confidence that they
would act at all unless compelled to do so by an outside agency, most likely
the courts on foot of a class action suit. Even then the penalty imposed would
probably be no worse than a punitive fine and a court order to pay
compensation. Heaven forbid, they might even be required to sign a corporate
integrity agreement.

Does this mean the system is broken? Yes, it does. In fact a senior member of
staff at the FDA admitted that this was the case. Here is an extract from a
paper by the Union of Concerned Scientists, FDA’s Drug Safety System Fails
to Protect Public (2004):

In September 2004, the pharmaceutical company, Merck,

voluntarily withdrew its pain medication Vioxx from the market
after evidence emerged that patients were at increased risk of heart
attack while taking the drug. Critics have charged that the FDA
failure to protect the American public in this instance is
symptomatic of a larger problem at the agency. In testimony before
the Senate Finance Committee, a reviewer in the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) Office of Safety Research charged that the
agency's system for evaluating drug safety is broken and fails to
protect public safety. In his November 2004 testimony the reviewer,
Dr. David Graham, charged that the FDA's procedures and culture
made it impossible to adequately investigate drugs, and that crucial
post-approval safety monitoring is especially compromised.

7
Note the ominous closing comment, “crucial post-approval safety monitoring
is especially compromised.”

It went on to say:

A series of studies published in the Journal of the

American Medical Association (JAMA) provided further
evidence that the FDA's system for regulating drug
safety is flawed. JAMA editors pointed out that the
system leaves drug makers largely responsible for
evaluating the dangers of their own drugs, and relies
on doctors’ volunteer reporting of problems rather than
any thorough evaluation after a drug is on the
market. The editors agreed that it was unreasonable to
have the same agency both approve drugs and "also be
committed to actively seek evidence to prove itself
wrong."

We repeat: The system is broken

This brings us to the end of Part One of our paper: The system is broken. In
arriving at this conclusion, it was not necessary to consider whether or not
vaccines are effective or even whether there is evidence to suggest that some
of them may be harmful. The truth is that no reliable early-warning indicators
exist to flag a potential disaster.
When one considers the number of children who receive these products and
the long-term impact that they can have on the health and general well-being
of our dear ones, this situation is nothing short of alarming.
Those journalists and insiders who defend vaccine safety, but who ignore this
overarching reality, should be ashamed of themselves. No-one can claim that
any of the existing vaccines are safe while they continue to be administered
through a regime that is patently unable to respond effectively – or even
responsibly – to signs that a drug is harming the population.

8
PART TWO: The Make-believe World of Vaccine Safety
Defenders of vaccine safety are generally impatient with anyone who dares to
raise questions about the contents of these highly artificial products.
Seemingly, a person without a medical qualification is ineligible to participate
in any such debate. They will even attack medically qualified personnel if they
do not work directly in the field of epidemiology or pharmacology. Many of
them use the demeaning epithet ‘anti-vaxxer’ to describe someone who
questions the safety of vaccines, more often than not implying that in doing so
they are undermining a system that can work effectively only if such questions
are not asked!

Are childhood vaccines necessary?

Are vaccines necessary? This is not an easy question to answer. There is a
large body of evidence, produced mainly by the pharmaceutical industry, to
suggest that they may have some efficacy. Equally there is a great deal of
evidence to indicate that improvements in the general health of the population
over the past hundred years or so can been attributed almost exclusively to
the same factors that have affected human health throughout history, namely
standards of sanitation and hygiene, personal nutrition, and the availability of
clean water.

For example, when living standards collapse and large numbers of people are
forced to live in squalid, insanitary conditions, with poor quality food and a
greatly reduced supply of clean water, disease outbreaks can occur within
weeks. These arise mainly from the accumulation of human and animal waste
and pathogens carried by rodents and insects.

9
Our bodies are already home to many of the micro-organisms that cause
disease. However, they exist in such minute quantities that they are unable to
overwhelm our immune system. The situation changes dramatically when our
immune system is weakened by poor nutrition and poor quality water or when
the quantities of infectious micro-organisms in our immediate environment
increase enormously, for example when basic sanitation breaks down and
human waste is allowed to accumulate and fester.

Suspect claims by the industry

So, when the pharmaceutical industry publishes graphs that purport to show
a causal connection between the introduction of vaccines and a marked fall in
the incidence of certain diseases, they are making a claim which is very
difficult to substantiate. In order for such a claim to have any scientific
validity, the industry would need to produce a graph for each disease which
showed how the incidence of that disease would have diminished (without the
use of vaccines) as living standards improved over time. Only then could they
argue that the additional fall (if any!) in the incidence of a particular disease
was due to the vaccine.

Any enquiry into the efficacy of vaccines is entirely dependent on the

availability of accurate epidemiological statistics. Alas, the methodology used
to compile and analyze such statistics is largely under the control of the
pharmaceutical industry. Under normal circumstances, where profit is not a
major consideration, one would expect such statistics to be reliable since no-
one stood to benefit by skewing them in one direction or another. However,
where vested interests can influence the outcome, we would expect a bias of
some kind. This is especially true where vaccines are concerned since they are
the most profitable – by far – of all the products manufactured by the
pharmaceutical industry.

10
As we noted earlier, we are concerned mainly with the safety and not the
efficacy of vaccines in this paper. Nevertheless we need to see that the science
purporting to prove their efficacy is much more complicated, and much less
convincing, than the industry would have us believe. In practice, there is also
a significant degree of overlap in the public mind between safety and efficacy.
The industry likes to exploit the common human tendency to believe that, if
something is beneficial, then it can do no harm.

Vaccine contents
Vaccines do not consist simply of the ‘active’ ingredient in a solution of
sterilized water. Several other substances are also added to preserve and
stabilize the vaccine, along with an ‘adjuvant’ to improve the body’s immune
response to the active ingredient. These additional substances, which are
sometimes called excipients, can include an aluminum salt, formaldehyde,
gelatine, human serum albumin, and an adjuvant known as squalene which is
derived from purified fish oil. Seemingly, these are present only in extremely
small quantities. For example, each vaccine dose contains only about a
millionth of a gram of aluminum.

Vaccine contents
Common vaccine substances include antigens (attenuated viruses,
bacteria, toxoids), preservatives (thimerosal, benzethonium
chloride, 2-phenoxyethanol, phenol), adjuvants (aluminum salts),
additives (ammonium sulfate, glycerin, sodium borate, polysorbate
80, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, potassium chloride),
stabilizers (fetal bovine serum, monosodium glutamate, human
serum albumin, porcine gelatin), antibiotics (neomycin, strep-
tomycin, polymyxin B), and inactivating chemicals (formalin,
glutaraldehyde, polyoxyethylene).

Whether or not these substances are required is a matter of conjecture. The

pharmaceutical companies are allowed to include them because the amounts
are so small and are not known to be toxic if taken orally. However, vaccines
are injected directly into a child’s tissue and quickly make their way into the
bloodstream. If any of the constituents get past the blood-brain barrier they
can (and do) affect the brain, and may trigger an inflammatory immune
response.

11
Encephalitis or inflammation of the tissue surrounding the brain has been
observed countless times in young children within hours of receiving a
vaccine. Many of them went on to develop mild to severe autism. The
pharmaceutical companies contend that in all such cases the symptoms were
“coincidental” – unexplained – and that a causal connection between the
vaccine and the symptoms cannot be inferred.

To the average person this attitude may seem perverse. However, the idea that
such events can simply be dismissed as “coincidental” is an axiom of the
vaccine industry. This can be seen most clearly in the guidelines for 2014
(revised in 2016) produced by the World Health Organization (WHO), titled:
Global Manual on Surveillance of Adverse Effects Following Immunization.

The edition for 2013 carried the following explanation of purpose:

PURPOSE: This user manual serves as a guide to a systematic,

standardized global causality assessment process for serious adverse
events following immunization (AEFI). It is intended to be used by staff
at national level (such as members of national AEFI committees) and at
subnational level, as well as immunization programme managers and
others. It also serves as an educational tool for trainers and researchers
and as a ready reference guide on AEFI causality assessment.
In short, the Manual purports to be the approved model for use by national
health authorities in all countries (not just the US and Europe) when assessing
adverse reactions to vaccines, especially where a causal link is postulated.
(Some relevant extracts from the Manual are set out in Appendix A.)

12
Pediatricians challenge the WHO guidelines
Earlier this year two leading pediatricians in India published a paper in the
F1000Research open access publishing platform which was severely critical
of the revised WHO guidelines (It is doubtful whether more traditional
medical journals would have published the paper). According to the authors –
Dr Jacob Puliyel of Delhi and Dr Pathik Naik of Surat – the new guidelines put
the lives of children at risk and action needs to be taken “urgently in the
interest of child safety.”

Incredibly, under the revised WHO guidelines, only adverse reactions that had
been observed during clinical trials of a vaccine could be classified as vaccine-
related. All new serious adverse reactions, even those which result in the
death of the child, should be considered “coincidental” or “unclassifiable.” The
vaccine itself should not be blamed!

Vaccine-related fatalities
A study by Neil Z Miller and Gary S Goldman published in 2011 showed that
countries which require more vaccine doses in the first year tend to have higher
infant mortality rates. Under the International Classification of Diseases (ICD),
infant deaths may be categorized into one of 132 categories. One of these –
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), sometimes known as cot death – shows
a strong statistical correlation to the DTP vaccine. One study has shown that
70% of SIDS deaths occurred within 3 weeks of receiving the vaccine, while
Fine & Chen (1992) reported that babies died at a rate nearly 8 times greater
than normal within 3 days of getting a DTP vaccination.

On the basis of their research, Miller and Goldman concluded that several
other infant death categories may also be linked to vaccines. They stated:

Several additional ICD categories are possible candidates

for incorrect infant death classifications: unspecified viral
diseases, diseases of the blood, septicemia, diseases of the
nervous system, anoxic brain damage, other diseases of
the nervous system, diseases of the respiratory system,
influenza, and unspecified diseases of the respiratory
system. All of these selected causes may be repositories of
vaccine-related infant deaths reclassified as common
fatalities.

13
One would have thought that their paper and others like it would have led to
a more effective analysis of the linkage between vaccines and adverse health
outcomes, not only in relation to actual fatalities but also in relation to a
child’s health and development in the longer-term. However, the World Health
Organization – which is controlled by the same people who control the
pharmaceutical industry – would seem determined to ensure that no such
causal relationships are ever identified.
As the Indian pediatricians pointed out in their paper, the WHO Manual has
also changed the definition of “causal association” whereby, if a possible
alternative explanation of an adverse event could be postulated, no causal
association with the vaccine should be made. The impact of this restriction on
the accuracy of medical reporting in India became evident when, among the
AEFI (adverse event following immunization) cases reported to the national
database after the guidelines were revised – in which 54 babies died – not one
death was classified as vaccine-related. Most were described as “unclass-
ifiable” or “coincidental.”

The Parable of the Blind by Peter Bruegel the Elder

Vaccine Testing
It is the responsibility of the pharmaceutical companies to test their vaccines
thoroughly before they are submitted to the FDA for approval, and it is the
responsibility of the FDA to establish that they have done so. But this is not
happening. In fact, the revised WHO guidelines offer a further incentive to the
industry to reduce the rigor and quality of testing since only those symptoms
that show up during testing can later be cited as having a causal association
with the vaccine.

14
Testing must take into consideration all of the ‘excipients’ [known
constituents] used in the vaccine and determine the quantity of each substance
that can be safely injected – in one dose or multiple doses over time – into a
very young child. There is also an onus on the manufacturer to prove that the
vaccine is safe for use by the entire spectrum of the population that is likely
to receive it, not just a small cohort of fit and healthy young people. Such
testing should also take account of the long-term effects of the drug and its
interaction with other drugs, as well as its impact on recipients with a
compromised immune system.

One would like to think that this is standard practice across the industry, but
we know from experience that this is not the case. The failures at Merck,
which led to over 60,000 unlawful deaths among users of Vioxx, is disturbing
proof of this. A similar series of failures in relation to a vaccine administered
to tens of millions of children would have catastrophic consequences.

The CDC Pledge

The CDC pledges “To base all public health decisions on the highest quality
scientific data that is derived openly and objectively.” In practice this pledge
has no meaning if the industry is able to secure approval for its products while
making selective use of scientific data, using criteria which ignore the express
concerns of the public, ignoring commonly accepted standards of objectivity,
and rejecting outright what is generally known as the ‘Precautionary
Principle.’ According to Wikipedia this principle implies “that there is a social
responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm when scientific
investigation has found a plausible risk.”

15
Mercury in Vaccines
Even in an area which ought to be fairly straightforward – the choice of
constituents intended to maximize vaccine stability and effectiveness – the
record is far from reassuring. Consider mercury. In the form of thimerosal, it
was a routine constituent of several vaccines for many decades. Acting as a
preservative it suppressed the growth of contaminating bacteria and fungi
from the environment after a vial of multi-dose vaccine was opened.
(Seemingly it was not needed in single-dose vaccines where the risk of
contamination is extremely low.)

The pharmaceutical industry stopped using mercury in certain vaccines

between 2003 and 2011. This step was taken, not in response to widespread
public concern over the safety of mercury in vaccines – since the industry has
always denied that mercury ever posed any level of risk – but supposedly to
conform, voluntarily, with the international goal of reducing environmental
exposure to mercury from all sources. (This means they could reintroduce it
in the morning if they wanted to.)

The additional constituents in a 0.5 ml

dose of vaccine may be exceedingly
small in volume terms, but they affect
the contents of the vaccine. That’s
why they are added. The same
constituents will continue to affect a
similar volume of fluid in the child’s
body, including his or her brain. Does
this sound like chemical roulette?

This begs the question – if mercury is no longer included in most vaccines,

then why was it added in the first place? It is very difficult to understand why
it was considered an indispensable ingredient for so long, especially as it is
known to have a toxic effect on the body even in exceedingly small amounts.
Critics have long argued that the industry simply assumed that a miniscule
amount of this highly toxic substance would have no adverse effects on the
human body, including tiny babies weighing only a few pounds.

16
It failed to conduct rigorous trials to establish whether or not this assumption
was well founded. In practice it was regarded as an inactive ingredient, even
though it was added for the express purpose of suppressing certain biological
activity, namely the growth of bacteria and fungi. What activity might it
continue to suppress after it entered the human body? The industry made no
meaningful attempt to find out.

Parents of autistic children have long suspected that the mercury added to
vaccines can have a detrimental effect on the brain of developing infants. The
countless reported instances of severe adverse reactions within hours or days
of receiving a vaccine lend considerable support to this view. Given that many
of these children later exhibit mild to severe cognitive impairment, the
willingness of the industry to consistently play down the possibility of a causal
connection is incomprehensible. This corporate cynicism is facilitated by
governments who are anxious to avoid the wrath of one of the most profitable
industries in our modern world.

A Startling Admission by the FDA

As might be expected, we find repeated references in the literature to the role
played by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). No drug or vaccine of any
kind can be put on the market without its written approval. This means that
in any instance where a product causes harm to the public, the FDA are
implicated. It is their responsibility to ensure that the safety of the product
has been conclusively established before it is released for use by the public. It
must also, where necessary, specify the category of person to whom the
product may be given and the range of health conditions it is designed to treat.

17
The problem, in practice, is that the FDA accepts no responsibility for the
damage caused by defective or unsafe pharmaceutical products. It is extremely
difficult to sue the FDA under the Federal Tort Claims Act and, as far as we
can tell, no executive or employee of the FDA has ever been held criminally
liable for professional negligence.

The attitude of the FDA – its shameless belief in its own immunity to
prosecution – is even flaunted on its website, which carries the following
overhead in one of its sections:

The overhead is accompanied by the following commentary on adverse drug

reactions (ADRs):
The first question healthcare providers should ask themselves is "why is
it important to learn about ADRs?" The answer is because ADRs are one
of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in health care. The
Institute of Medicine reported in January of 2000 that from 44,000 to
98,000 deaths occur annually from medical errors. Of this total, an
estimated 7,000 deaths occur due to ADRs. To put this in perspective,
consider that 6,000 Americans die each year from workplace injuries.

18
 However, other studies conducted on hospitalized patient populations
have placed much higher estimates on the overall incidence of serious
ADRs. These studies estimate that 6.7% of hospitalized patients have a
serious adverse drug reaction with a fatality rate of 0.32%. If these
estimates are correct, then there are more than 2,216,000 serious ADRs
in hospitalized patients, causing over 106,000 deaths annually. If true,
then ADRs are the 4th leading cause of death—ahead of pulmonary
disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile deaths.
These statistics do not include the number of ADRs that occur in
ambulatory settings. Also, it is estimated that over 350,000 ADRs occur
in U.S. nursing homes each year. The exact number of ADRs is not
certain and is limited by methodological considerations. However,
whatever the true number is, ADRs represent a significant public health
problem that is, for the most part, preventable.
Incredibly, the FDA is admitting that this “significant public health problem”,
which kills hundreds of thousands of Americans every year, is “for the most
part preventable” but fails to state that responsibility for its prevention lies in
large measure with the FDA itself!

A question of trust
Despite all the evidence reported in the media over the past few decades,
evidence which clearly shows the pharmaceutical industry is out of control
and that the FDA is an ineffectual pawn in a ruthless profit-making enterprise,
the vast majority of Americans are loath to admit that these organizations
simply cannot be trusted. The problem is due in part to the failure by family
doctors across the US to challenge the stranglehold that the industry exercises
over healthcare in America. This in turn is due to the willingness of a great
many medical professionals at all levels to accept the lucrative enticements
that the industry uses to keep them in line.

19
The public must jettison the false belief that pharmaceutical companies “care”
about their customers. They don’t, they never did, and they never will. They
are no more trustworthy than any other business enterprise and no less liable
to play fast and loose with the facts in order to protect their profits or their
market share.

An experienced professional speaks out

In her lengthy review of three books exposing the venality and corruption of
the pharmaceutical industry, Dr Marcia Angell stated in the New York Review
of Books (January 15, 2009):

No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to

physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top nine US drug
companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year. By such
means, the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over
how doctors evaluate and use its own products. Its extensive ties to
physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools,
affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the
definition of what constitutes a disease.
If medical professionals knew how phony and self-serving the drug testing
system really is, they might be less inclined to co-operate with the industry.
Dr Angell describes it in stark terms:

20
Consider the clinical trials by which drugs are tested in human subjects.
Before a new drug can enter the market, its manufacturer must sponsor
clinical trials to show the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is
safe and effective, usually as compared with a placebo or dummy pill.
The results of all the trials (there may be many) are submitted to the
FDA, and if one or two trials are positive – that is, they show
effectiveness without serious risk – the drug is usually approved, even if
all the other trials are negative.
In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the
enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in
medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs – largely because
negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly
published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even
negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of
antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight
positive studies were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies,
thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that
conveyed a positive outcome. It is not unusual for a published paper to
shift the focus from the drug’s intended effect to a secondary effect that
seems more favorable.
…Of much greater significance was the attention called to the deliberate,
systematic practice of suppressing unfavorable research results, which
would never have been revealed without the legal discovery process…
Many drugs that are assumed to be effective are probably little better
than placebos, but there is no way to know because negative results are
hidden. One clue was provided six years ago by four researchers who,
using the Freedom of Information Act, obtained FDA reviews of every
placebo-controlled clinical trial submitted for initial approval of the six
most widely used antidepressant drugs approved between 1987 and 1999
– Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Serzone, and Effexor. They found that
on average, placebos were 80 percent as effective as the drugs. The
difference between drug and placebo was so small that it was unlikely to
be of any clinical significance. The results were much the same for all
six drugs: all were equally ineffective. But because favorable results
were published and unfavorable results buried (in this case, within the
FDA), the public and the medical profession believed these drugs were
potent antidepressants.

21
In these few short paragraphs Dr Angell, who was deeply familiar with the
inner workings of the American medical establishment, laid bare the lies and
hypocrisy that underpin the pharmaceutical industry. With a note of dejection
she concluded:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical

research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted
physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure
in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my
two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

This is a damning indictment of a system that everyone is supposed to trust.

A well-placed insider, with years of experience, including two decades as an
editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, states in a high-profile
publication that it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical
research. In effect she is saying that the industry lies and cheats some of the
time. The companies that develop potent substances for injection into a new-
born baby are no more trustworthy than the tobacco companies of the 1950s
and 1960s.

Family Physicians
Dr Angell also states that it is no longer possible to rely on the judgment of
trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. The medical profession
is so hopelessly in thrall to the propaganda spun by the pharmaceutical
industry, not to mention the many financial inducements that it offers, that
parents cannot trust their family doctor to give an unbiased opinion on
matters that will have lifelong implications for the health and well-being of
their children.

In his hard-hitting presentation on YouTube – Vaccines and Brain

Development (Radio Liberty Conference, 2008) – Dr Russell Blaylock deplores
the arrogance instilled in medical graduates during their training. They are
conditioned to treat the findings of pharmaceutical companies as fault-free,
legitimate science and to downplay or reject first-hand accounts by concerned
parents of an adverse reaction to a vaccine given to one of their children.

22
Dr Blaylock has published papers on the hypothesis that immuno-excito-
toxicity is a central mechanism in chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Don’t be
deterred by the big words – the underlying idea is very simple. According to
his hypothesis there is ample medical evidence to show that the brain
responds to invading toxins – such as the constituents of vaccines – by
releasing cytokines which deliver the necessary immune response to the
affected area. This can over-stimulate the brain and cause an inflammation
that may last for days or even weeks. In extreme cases, it will manifest as a
seizure. This is why some children cry and scream for days after receiving a
vaccine.

Breast feeding
It is well known that breast feeding supplies not just
important nutrients to the developing child, but immunity to
numerous diseases. These come from antigens that are
naturally present in the mother’s milk. The Bible even
indicates that breast-feeding in ancient Israel continued until
the child was nearly three years of age:
“Beside their genealogy of males, from three years old and
upward, even unto every one that entereth into the house of
the LORD, his daily portion for their service in their charges
according to their courses”
– 2 Chronicles 31:16

The inflammation hypothesis

According to his hypothesis, which is supported by a wealth of research data,
the next time the child receives a vaccine, the brain will respond even more
forcibly to the invading stimulus. It is this inflammation which hampers the
natural development of the brain and leads, in many cases, to conditions like
autism, ADHD, speech difficulties, and other neurological disorders. Some of
these adverse effects may not become apparent for 2-3 years, or even longer.

By age 2 a child in America will have received 36 vaccinations or vaccine doses.

This is simply too many. Every vaccination is by definition a shock to the
child’s system. Many research studies have proven that a similar vaccination
regime in animals – such as rats or pigs – can easily cause brain damage.
Analysis of tissue samples confirm this. The animal’s behavior is affected,
sometimes severely, and many are rendered infertile.

23
Twelve claims by the industry
Parents are loath to question the need for vaccines. They have difficulty
weighing the risk of vaccination against the risk posed by the disease. Let’s
look at some facts which show how the industry has woven a web of fear and
deception from dubious science, false claims, hollow threats, and relentless
propaganda. We will take each of its ‘claims’ in turn and see how substantive
they really are:
Claim #1: Vaccines confer lifelong immunity
No, they don’t. Experience shows that most vaccines offer protection for
little more than five years. Compare this with natural immunity, which
lasts a lifetime.

Claim #2: While it lasts, vaccine protection is completely reliable

No, it isn’t. Experience has shown over and over that many children
succumb to diseases against which they have been vaccinated.
Furthermore, the industry has never proven that the resistance to a
particular disease by children who had been vaccinated was actually due
to the vaccine and not wholly or in part to other relevant factors –
notably nutrition, sanitation, and hygiene.

‘And then he
said, “But we
tested the
vaccines”!’

24
Claim #3: Mass inoculation with vaccines confers ‘herd immunity’
The term ‘herd’ is typical of the language used by eugenicists, who
regard humanity in aggregate as animals that consume valuable
resources and defile the earth. They believe the ‘herd’ must be culled
from time to time, whether by war, disease, famine, or other means.

This kind of immunity is a myth! Since vaccines provide protection (such

as it is) for no more than four years, the majority of the population of
the U.S. have no vaccine-conferred immunity to any disease. Seen in this
light the concept is nonsensical.

The industry used to argue that if 60% of the population was inoculated
against a specific disease the remaining 40% would enjoy a high level of
protection. This figure rose to 70% and then 80%. Today they claim that
90% of the population must be inoculated in order the protect the
population as a whole. Before long they will likely insist that complete
protection can only be guaranteed if everyone is vaccinated. This will
lead to demands from the industry for mandatory vaccinations and the
imposition of penalties, including the threat of imprisonment, for those
who refuse to co-operate.

Is nowhere safe
from government
interference?

Claim #4: The safety of vaccines has been conclusively proven

As we have already seen, this is not true. The pharmaceutical industry
routinely tests a vaccine under those standards and conditions that are
least likely to show its defects. Many favourable assumptions are made
to mitigate the risk of finding a flaw in their product. They can submit
the best results from a series of trials as proof that a vaccine is both
safe and effective, while withholding evidence from trials which show
no benefit. They do not allow independent corroboration of their claims
before a product is approved and will challenge the professional
integrity and qualifications of anyone who tries to show that the
product is either unsafe or ineffective.

25
Claim #5: VAERS ensures that all adverse events are recorded
[VAERS: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]
The VAERS system only serves to disguise the true extent of the threat
posed by defective vaccines. Only one pediatrician in five is known to
report cases to the system. This means a great many cases are not being
reported. In addition, the system is designed mainly to handle cases
where the elapsed time between the vaccine and the observed effect is
fairly short. Many adverse effects cannot be identified for several years,
when neither the doctor nor the parents are likely to recognize a
possible causal connection between a manifesting health condition and
the vaccine.

Claim #6: Childhood vaccines have greatly reduced the incidence of

many diseases
This is not true either. Statistics across the board for all major
contagious diseases show conclusively that remarkable improvements
occurred before the relevant vaccine was introduced. Consider the
following chart for the U.S., which shows the incidence of measles in
the general population from 1900 to 1984. Why was there such a sharp
fall in the numbers dying from measles before the vaccine was
introduced in 1963? The answer is simple – improved nutrition and
standards of sanitation across America. Healthy children, with no
underlying congenital condition, do not die from measles. On the other
hand, in developing countries, where nutrition and standards of
sanitation are of poor quality, young children certainly do die from
measles – even when they are vaccinated against it.

26
Similar mortality charts for other contagious childhood diseases –
including mumps, rubella, pertussis (whooping cough), and diphtheria –
show the same sharp decline before the relevant vaccine was introduced.

It is a little known fact that vaccines have in some cases increased the
incidence of a disease. In 1985, the CDC reported that 87% of the cases
of polio in the USA between 1973 and 1983 were caused by the vaccine
and most of the reported cases occurred in fully immunized individuals.
In 1977, Jonas Salk, the creator of the polio vaccine, testified before a
Senate subcommittee that “all polio outbreaks since 1961 were caused by
the oral polio vaccine.”

It has also been observed that the polio epidemic of the 1950s was under
way for several years before it began to produce serious adverse effects.
These coincided with the introduction of the DTP vaccine which, it is
believed, weakened the immune response in some children, causing the
polio virus to affect them more severely and in a hitherto unknown way.
Until then the virus merely produced flu-like symptoms.

Claim #7: The vaccine manufacturing process is perfectly safe

No, it isn’t. Even though several of the ‘excipients’ (constituents) in the
vaccine are intended to reduce the risk of contamination, a significant
level of risk still exists. The best known example of this is SV-40, a virus
that originated in African green monkeys. Kidney cells from this species
of simian were used to grow the polio virus during production, but the
cells were infected with a hitherto unknown virus (SV-40) which could
cause cancerous tumors in humans.

African Green Monkey.

27
Between 1955 and 1963 around 90% of children (and 60% of adults) in
the U.S. were inoculated with polio vaccines that were contaminated
with the virus. Even though the virus was removed from all vaccines
manufactured after 1970, it still persists today in a large percentage of
the human population, passing from mother to child in the womb.

Merck, which manufactured the vaccine, realized by 1960 that their

vaccine contained SV-40, but they did not know it was carcinogenic.
Rather than remove the virus from the manufacturing process, thereby
eliminating the risk of possible harm to future recipients, Merck simply
continued to manufacture the vaccine until they had conclusive proof
that the virus was dangerous. Up to then it suited them to assume that
the virus was probably harmless. During this period many millions of
healthy American children were unnecessarily infected with the cancer-
causing SV-40 virus, simply because the pharmaceutical company did
not want to take a simple precautionary step, at its own expense, and
remove the virus. The decision by Merck to leave the virus in the vaccine
was clearly sociopathic. Its executives chose to maximize profits even if
it meant gambling with the health of millions of children.

The same sociopathic attitude continues to pervade the industry today.

28
Many studies have shown that SV-40 may not have been as carcinogenic
in humans as originally thought. However, as most of these studies
appear to have been sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, serious
doubts remain. In any event, this startling episode shows that many key
players in the industry are prepared to take outrageous risks with the
well-being of the general population in their quest to maximize profits.
If unknown viruses and DNA fragments are making their way into
vaccines, then there are reasonable grounds to expect that new kinds of
neurological diseases will emerge over time. This would seem to be
happening already. For example, cases of Acute Flaccid Myelitis (AFM),
which does not appear to be contagious, have increased significantly
since 2014. Many pediatricians are angry that the CDC has been so slow
to alert the public to the relatively high instance of this ‘new’ disease or
to propose measures to address it. Even though it produces symptoms in
children akin to polio, it is not caused by a polio-type virus. Furthermore,
only children are affected. This would suggest that it may originate with
something to which only children are exposed – such as childhood
vaccines. Also, the fact that it is not contagious would indicate that it is
introduced into the body from a non-airborne source, such as a vaccine.

Child with Acute Flaccid Myelitis (AFM)

Claim #8: Vaccines contribute to rising standards of public health

Even if standards of public health were rising, this claim would have
little to support it. But they are not rising. In fact, under several
measures of well-being they are falling. The incidence of autism and
autism-spectrum disorders has grown dramatically over the past 20
years. So too has the incidence of asthma and asthma-related mortality.

29
The incidence of type-1 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis among
children is now at record levels, and serious food allergies and eating
disorders among children and young people have increased significantly.

Numerous studies indicate that many of these disorders are linked in

some way to vaccines – which work by stimulating the immune system.
A vaccine dose that gives an appropriate amount of stimulation to one
child may give an excessive amount to another. Since the immune system
is ‘trained’ by its early experiences these events may have long-lasting
effects, causing the immune system to over-compensate in response to
certain stimuli. Both asthma and rheumatoid arthritis are classic
autoimmune disorders. There is also reason to believe that certain
excipients may promote food intolerance. Take peanut allergy, which can
cause death through anaphylactic shock. This strange phenomenon was
virtually unknown before the introduction of vaccines. Research
suggests that the use of peanut oil as an adjuvant in certain vaccines may
over-sensitize some children to peanut-based food additives. This can be
so severe that even the smell of peanut butter can trigger a fatal
anaphylactic reaction in a sensitive child.

The greatest source of childhood immunity.

30
Claim #9: All childhood vaccines are necessary for good health
On the strict understanding that they are both safe and effective, certain
childhood vaccines may possibly be desirable. But some are of doubtful
value. These include:

Hepatitis B: This vaccine is given at birth and on several occasions

thereafter before the child is two years old. It is probably the most
superfluous of all childhood vaccines since it protects against a pathogen
that can only be contracted through sexual intercourse or contact with
bodily fluids. Unless the child’s mother is likely to carry the virus, there
is no reason to give this vaccine. Please note, also, that the first dose of
the vaccine is given at birth, to a child weighing only 7-8 pounds.
Tetanus: Unless a person is working in close contact with animals, there
is hardly any need for this vaccine (especially as it provides immunity
for only a few years). Cases of tetanus, even among persons who are not
vaccinated, are extremely rare. If a wound is properly cleaned there
should be no risk of infection. So why give it to a tiny child weighing only
12 pounds or so?

Measles, Mumps, Rubella: These were standard, non-life-threatening

childhood diseases in the 1950s. Improvements in general nutrition,
sanitation and hygiene had reduced their mortality rate to almost zero.
Where deaths do occur, they are generally attributable to complications
arising from underlying health conditions. It is hard to see why any child
would need to be vaccinated against these common illnesses.

31
Children who contract them naturally will be unwell for a couple of days
but will enjoy lifelong immunity thereafter. On the other hand, a very
high proportion – around 90% – of the cases of measles that arise every
year are among children who have already been vaccinated against it.
Claim #10: Vaccines have never been shown to cause autism
The proponents of mass vaccination programs claim that no court of law
has ever acknowledged that even one case of severe autism has been
attributed to an adverse reaction to a vaccine. This may or may not be
true, depending on how one interprets the rulings made by courts which
have paid out compensation. However, the very fact that compensation
has been paid in a very large number of cases is proof that ‘something’
went seriously wrong somewhere.

No pharmaceutical company will ever admit liability, and no court of law

will ever encroach on matters which lie entirely within the competence
of another profession. So, unless the medical professionals themselves
bear witness to a causal linkage, no such linkage will ever be declared.
It is also well known that ‘gagging’ clauses are attached to many awards,
preventing the parents of a severely autistic child from highlighting their
tragic experience in the media. On top of all this, we have the undeniable
reluctance of the media to report such cases, or even to report on bona
fide trials and research which contradict – or even question – the line
promoted by the pharmaceutical companies.

Furthermore, as the WHO guidelines confirm [see above], the authorities

are making it very difficult for concerned pediatricians to draw any
conclusions, even in cases where a child dies soon after receiving a
vaccine, which might suggest a causal link between the vaccine and a
fatal adverse reaction.

32
As the WHO guidelines state, “The potential for coincidental events to
harm the immunization programme through false attribution is
immense.” The enforcement of this attitude will almost certainly
suppress any meaningful discussion of this highly sensitive issue at
international level. Meanwhile, the deaths of tens of thousands of
children will continue to be recorded as “coincidental.” (In years to come
the greatest cause of infant mortality across the world may prove to be
a hitherto unknown pathogen called “coincidence”.)

Claim #11: The pharmaceutical companies are fully accountable in

law
Few members of the public are aware that pharmaceutical companies in
the U.S. can manufacture and market childhood vaccines without
liability. This ought to shock any rational, law-abiding person. This legal
immunity was conferred on the industry via the National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 and the Public Readiness and Emergency
Preparedness Act of 2006. These exempt members of the industry from
paying damages, even in cases where their liability is beyond dispute.
All cases for compensation must instead be heard by a special court,
which was established under the 1986 Act, known as the “vaccine court”
or, officially, The Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims. This court deals with all litigation coming before it on a no-fault
basis. Huge sums can be paid in compensation but no-one is at fault.

It is extremely difficult to take any of the pharmaceutical companies to

state or federal court and deal with a case under normal tort legislation.
The industry is either above the law or subject only to its own laws,
depending on your point of view.

33
One family rejected the decision of the vaccine court and succeeded in
taking their case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 – a
remarkable achievement in itself. Unfortunately for the courageous
family concerned, the Supreme Court decided that the National
Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 pre-empts all vaccine defect claims
against vaccine manufacturers. In a 6-2 ruling, it affirmed that vaccine
manufacturers were not liable for vaccine-induced injury or death if they
are "accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”
If vaccines were safe, would any of these exemptions be required? What
other industry manufactures a product or provides a service for which it
cannot be held liable if the product or service proves dangerous or
defective? Not one. Yet the vaccine industry claims to adhere to
standards of excellence which equal or exceed those of any other
industry. It defies belief.

Claim #12: Vaccine trials are conducted to the highest scientific

standards
This claim is closely related to #11 above.
Scientific standards can vary considerably, depending on the field of
study and the range of parameters selected at the outset. Two related
medical studies could fully satisfy all necessary scientific criteria, but
one could prove a finding of great importance and the other could prove
something of little or no consequence. Normally, if a research scientist
wants to prove a particular hypothesis he will design his study or trial
accordingly. On the other hand, if he wants to disprove the same
hypothesis, he will generally make whatever legitimate changes he can
in order to maximize the chances of getting the outcome he wants.

34
The problem with the pharmaceutical industry is that it has absolutely
no incentive to design trials and studies which reveal weaknesses or
defects in its products. In fact, it has exactly the opposite incentive,
namely, to design trials and studies which optimize the probability that
the research data will confirm their safety and effectiveness. And there
are many ways to do this.

For example, the population on whom the vaccine is tested may be fitter
and healthier on average than future recipients of the vaccine. Or they
omit any tests of the interaction that the vaccine may have with other
drugs which future recipients of the drug may be taking. Or the control
group, whose members receive a placebo, may be given a substance
which contains some of the excipients found in the vaccine. Or account
is not taken of the proximity of vaccine doses, or the number of vaccine
doses already given, or the weight of the child receiving the dose. The
company may also confine its trials to a limited time period, thereby
eliminating any possibility of finding adverse effects that would only
emerge over a longer time period – this is especially significant where
childhood vaccines are concerned. The company may also conduct
numerous trials and submit to the FDA only those trial results which
favour the product.

As the Journal of the American Medical Association stated, it is

unreasonable to expect the same company to test and approve its own
products and at the same time “actively seek evidence to prove itself
wrong."

35
The pharmaceutical industry will never agree to conduct long-term
studies which compare total health outcomes, nor will it ever allow
independent research teams to do so. A major study of this kind would
require substantial funding and access to sensitive medical data. If an
independent group tried to do this, the industry would have no difficulty
blocking access to such data or dissuading grant institutions from
providing the necessary funds.

Long-term studies of this kind would enable the cause-effect relationship

between vaccines, diseases, and adverse health effects, including child
mortality, to be studied in great detail. Despite the staggering profits
being made from vaccines and the many billions of people who are
required to take them – whose health may be adversely affected as a
result – this has never been done! We can only conclude that the industry
is determined to block all attempts to show, one way or another, whether
a causal connection exists between the ever-increasing use of vaccines
and the ever-increasing incidence of serious childhood conditions such
as autism and autism-spectrum disorders, asthma, severe allergies,
type-1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, cot death, multiple sclerosis, and
a host of lesser-known serious health conditions, such as AFM.

Even short-term studies would be highly revealing if they were

conducted in double-blind, randomised trials. But the industry never
uses this level of rigor when “testing” childhood vaccines.

36
CONCLUSION
Any examination of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines is a real challenge
for concerned parents. The pharmaceutical industry has been highly
successful in convincing the public that their products are essential for good
health and pose no risk when used as directed. These powerful corporations
exercise extraordinary influence over governments, health agencies, the
media, medical practitioners, and virtually all aspects of healthcare. It is
extremely difficult for the individual to contest their claims in a public forum,
to hold them accountable, or to compel them to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that their products are safe.

Even though a growing proportion of the general public have well-founded

concerns about the safety and efficacy of childhood vaccines, the pressure to
accept them is immense and they continue to be endorsed by government with
a cavalier disregard for their potential drawbacks.

“Seems Max is slow to talk.”

“Yeah, I hear he took the vaccine.”

The greatest influencing factor, by far, is fear. The industry has continued to
use emotional arguments where rational, scientific ones have failed. Upsetting
images of children afflicted by a common childhood disease have a compelling
effect. Reports of large numbers of children dying from measles will shake any
parent – even though the children are dying in underdeveloped countries
where malnutrition is rife and standards of hygiene and sanitation are often
abysmally low.

37
 “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power,
and of love, and of a sound mind.” – 2 Timothy 1:7

The World Health Organization (WHO) is working hand in glove with the
pharmaceutical industry to increase the uptake of childhood vaccines. Like
their sponsors, the WHO is prepared to use fear tactics to expand its influence,
even to the point of deliberately misleading the public. For example, it
declared a worldwide level-6 pandemic alert for the H1N1 strain of flu in 2009.
Level-6 was at that time the highest alert level and could only be declared
where a real and substantial risk had been identified, where a significant level
of severity was already evident across a wide geographical area, and where
the pathogen was highly contagious. The WHO had never previously issued a
pandemic alert at level-6, but did so in 2009 on grounds which many experts
stated were entirely unjustified. The strain caused only “mild-to-moderate”
illness and at no stage met any of the criteria that might have warranted a
pandemic warning.

“I said it before and I’ll say it again, Keep away from my child!”

38
It is widely believed that the pharmaceutical companies had expected the
public to panic and consume hundreds of millions of the H1N1 vaccine doses
which they just happened to have ready – even though H1N1 was a hitherto
unknown strain of flu virus.

An even more cynical form of fear-mongering was employed by the WHO in

2017 when it circulated photos of babies with microcephaly, a serious cranial
deformity, allegedly born to Brazilian mothers who had been exposed to the
“dreaded” Zika virus during pregnancy. Again the public was expected to panic
and consume copious quantities of the miraculous protective vaccine that the
pharmaceutical companies had thoughtfully prepared.
According to the WHO and the CDC, the mosquito-borne Zika virus caused a
huge spike in cases of microcephaly in northern Brazil in 2015-2016. The
scientific case for a causal connection was made in a paper by S.A. Rasmussen
et al in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2016 – Zika Virus and Birth
Defects: Reviewing the Evidence for Causality. It stated:

As is typically the case in epidemiology and medicine, no “smoking gun” (a

single definitive piece of evidence that confirms Zika virus as a cause of
congenital defects) should have been anticipated. Instead, the determination
of a causal relationship would be expected to emerge from various lines of
evidence, each of which suggests, but does not on its own prove, that prenatal
Zika virus infection can cause adverse outcomes.

“Right lads, here they come. When I say “Poop”, poop.”

39
It is ironic to note that the WHO rejects out of hand the same clinical
methodology when analyzing the possible connection between childhood
vaccines and adverse events!

One would have expected the authors of the paper to have considered
environmental pollutants as one plausible explanation – but they didn’t!
Instead they opted for a proof based on “criteria for evidence of causation.”
This approach suited them admirably. In just about every instance where it
was possible to make an assumption that supported a causal connection, the
assumption was made. Seemingly no research was conducted by the authors,
no experimental data was collected and analyzed, and no alternative
explanations were considered. The impartiality and healthy scepticism that
one would normally expect in a paper of this kind was nowhere evident.

Other clinicians thought so too. A report in sciencedaily.com, June 24 2016,

stated the following:
Brazil's microcephaly epidemic continues to pose a mystery -- if Zika is the
culprit, why are there no similar epidemics in other countries also hit hard by
the virus? In Brazil, the microcephaly rate soared with more than 1,500
confirmed cases. But in Colombia, a recent study of nearly 12,000 pregnant
women infected with Zika found zero microcephaly cases. If Zika is to blame
for microcephaly, where are the missing cases? Perhaps there is another
reason for the epidemic in Brazil. According to a new report by the New
England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), the number of missing cases
in Colombia and elsewhere raises serious questions about the assumed
connection between Zika and microcephaly.

40
The NECSI report, by Y Bar-Yam, R Parens and A Morales, showed beyond a
shadow of doubt that the real cause of microcephaly in these children was
almost certainly a pesticide (They suggest pyriproxyfen):

We summarize current evidence on the prevalence of Zika and microcephaly

in Brazil and Colombia and conclude that the expectation of a large number
of microcephaly cases outside of Brazil has not been realized. The ratio of
microcephaly to Zika cases is inconsistent between Colombia and Brazil and
between Brazilian states, where the majority of cases are confined to the
northeast region. At the rate of microcephaly in Colombia, if all pregnancies
in the Brazilian state of Pernambuco were infected by Zika, we estimate there
would only be 100 cases of microcephaly in a year, whereas the number of
confirmed cases is 386. Other causes and co-factors of microcephaly must be
considered, including the pesticide pyriproxyfen which has been added to
drinking water in some regions of Brazil since the fall of 2014 and is cross-
reactive with retinoic acid which is known to cause microcephaly.
The World Health Organization was satisfied to rush ahead and make a bold
pronouncement without taking proper account of all the facts. This suited
their sponsors, the pharmaceutical industry, who would profit greatly from
the line promoted by WHO. In addition to this, WHO betrayed the people of
Brazil who relied on them to identify the true cause and remove it. Instead
they are being given useless vaccines, while at the same time the poison that
is causing this immense human tragedy is allowed to remain in the
environment.

“There are cute little chickees in the others, honest.”

41
Anyone who still believes that the World Health Organization exists for any
purpose other than promoting the goals of the pharmaceutical industry ought
to look closely at their handling of this tragedy and their role in allowing it to
continue.

“And Tobiah sent letters to put me in fear.” - Nehemiah 6:19

Mass Sterilization
There is a further dimension to all of this, a dimension which has implications
for the future health (and survival) of large populations throughout the
developing world. Some of the leading spokesmen for the New World Order
have referred several times in recent years to the need to control human
population growth. Eugenicists of various hues have often advocated a
‘solution’ based on mass sterilization, preferably implemented by covert
means, possibly in the guise of a ‘health program’ designed to treat a common
illness.

Vaccine testing methodology.

42
We have already had a sinister foretaste of how this will work. In 2014 a
medical practitioner in Kenya suspected that a tetanus vaccine administered
to young girls under a program sponsored by the UN might be causing sterility.
He sent six samples to a lab in South Africa to be analyzed. All six contained
Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) which is known to cause miscarriages.

In March 2018, former Kenyan president, Raila Odinga, made a televised

public statement in which he confirmed that the tetanus vaccine given to about
half a million women in 2014-2015 did indeed contain the sterilization
hormone, HCG.

Appendix B (attached) gives two news reports, both available online, relating
to this event. It also includes an excerpt from an article in Wikipedia which
categorically rejected the allegations without discussing the evidence.

A report on ageofautism.com dated October 2017 included the following

remarks regarding the use of hCG by the World ‘Health’ Organization:
In 1993, WHO announced a “birth-control vaccine” for “family planning”.
Published research shows that by 1976 WHO researchers had conjugated
tetanus toxoid (TT) with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) producing
a “birth-control” vaccine. Conjugating TT with hCG causes pregnancy
hormones to be attacked by the immune system. Expected results are
abortions in females already pregnant and/or infertility in recipients not yet
impregnated. Repeated inoculations prolong infertility. Currently WHO
researchers are working on more potent anti-fertility vaccines using
recombinant DNA. WHO publications show a long-range purpose to
reduce population growth in unstable “less developed countries”.

Summary
The information given in this paper, all of which can be verified online or in
other published sources, allows us to draw the following conclusions:

1. The pharmaceutical industry is driven entirely by profit. It is no

more committed to the promotion of public health than any other
industry.

2. Its products are sold on the basis that they promote good health,
but most of the evidence that purports to prove this is produced by the
industry itself or by bodies with close ties to the industry.

43
3. If its products do promote public health – and they may – we have
no independent, objective way of confirming that this is actually the
case.

4. If any of its products cause harm to public health, the system

currently in place (which includes the FDA and the CDC) to detect the
incidence of harm and alert the public is seriously defective.

5. The industry routinely relies for product approval on a scientific

methodology which is known to be heavily biased toward outcomes
that favor the industry.

6. While paying compensation, the industry routinely uses legal means

to silence those who were harmed by its defective products.

7. The industry is not legally liable to pay compensation to anyone

harmed by its products. No other industry enjoys this extraordinary
immunity.

8. The industry routinely devotes a large proportion of its expenditure

on advertising and securing the acceptance of its products by medical
professionals.

9. The industry, it would appear, has never conducted a double-blind

randomized trial of any childhood vaccine.

10. The industry, it would appear, has never conducted an in-depth

study of the long-term health implications of any childhood vaccine.

11. Executives across the industry would appear to be immune to

criminal prosecution or any judicial verdict that might result in a
prison sentence.

12. The industry is able to block reports in the media, including those
based on sound scientific data or research, that might reduce public
confidence in its products.

13. The industry exploits its close ties with national health authorities
to enforce policies and regulations that limit or preclude possible
alternative approaches to the prevention and treatment of childhood
diseases.

44
 14. The industry uses the United Nations and allied bodies, such as the
World Health Organization and Unicef, to promote policies which
maximize the uptake of childhood vaccines and discredit research
findings that might challenge its dominant role in health policy
formation, both nationally and internationally.

15. There is a substantial body of evidence that childhood vaccines may

be harming, even killing, many recipients and that their reputed
benefits are greatly exaggerated.

16. There is ample evidence that the industry uses fear tactics and
exaggerated levels of risk in order to intimidate the public and coerce
concerned parents into having their children vaccinated.

We also know, based on the way the industry has behaved over the past fifty
years, that it is pushing hard behind the scenes for the introduction of
mandatory vaccination programs. Such a step would be unconscionable,
enabling vested interests unlimited scope to exploit public health for profit
and, if they so wish, to utilize pharmaceutical products as a tool of social
engineering.

In the hands of unscrupulous leaders, such powers could be used to support a

totalitarian regime by covertly controlling and impairing the physical and
mental well-being of the general population. Vaccines are an ideal way of
transmitting psychotropic substances or implanting micro devices. And, as we
have already seen, their power to genocidally erase an entire nation through
stealth sterilization is without equal.

45
What are we recommending?
What are we ‘recommending’?

Study God’s Word, study what these people are doing, and use your common
sense.

The Book of Revelation contains astounding insights into the minds of those who
are planning to create a New World Order and usher in the Antichrist. The
sorceries or pharmakeia of those who want to control this world will become
more pervasive and more destructive as we move closer to the End Time. The
conspiracy may seem formidable at times, but we should not be deterred. Fear
has no abiding place in the lives and hearts of those who are truly born again
and trust in Christ. The rightful heir to the throne of David will return in due
course and utterly destroy the conspirators and their wicked system:
“Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall
say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.”
– Isaiah 8:12

___________________
Jeremy James
Ireland
November 07, 2018

- SPECIAL REQUEST -

Regular readers are encouraged to download the papers on

this website for safekeeping and future reference. They may
not always be available. We are rapidly moving into an era
where material of this kind may be obtained only via email.
Readers who wish to be included on a future mailing list are
welcome to contact me at [email protected]. A
name is not required, just an email address.

For further information visit www.zephaniah.eu

Copyright Jeremy James 2018

46
 Bibliography

Roman Bystianyk and Suzanne Humphries: Dissolving Illusions:

Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History, 2013

Edwin Black: War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign
to Create a Master Race, Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003

Donald Light (ed.): The Risks of Prescription Drugs

Neil Miller and Gary Goldman:

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses
routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
Human and Experimental Toxicology, 2011

Marcia Angell: Drug Companies and Doctors – A Story of Corruption,

New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009

Catherine Frompovich: Vaccination Voodoo: What You Don’t Know About Vaccines,
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2013

Ben Goldacre: Bad Pharma: How Medicine is Broken and How We Can Fix It,
HarperCollins, 2013

Neil Miller: Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and

Health Practitioners, New Atlantean Press, 2010

Russell Blaylock: Health and Nutrition Secrets that Can Save Your Life,
Health Press, Albuquerque, 2006

Patrick Holford: Optimum Nutrition for the Mind, Piatkus, 2010

WHO: World Manual on Surveillance on Adverse Events Following Immunization

47
 APPENDIX A

Extracts from:

World Manual on Surveillance on Adverse Events Following Immunization,

World Health Organization 2014 (Revised March 2016)

Note: These extracts relate to the definition of “causality” used by

the WHO when applied to vaccine safety and the identification of
adverse events.

From para 3.4

For instance, incidence of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS or “cot
death”) peaks around the age of early childhood immunization.
Consequently, many SIDS cases will occur in children who have recently
been immunized. However, several well designed studies15 have shown
that the association of SIDS and immunization is coincidental and not
causal.

Coincidental adverse events may be predictable. The number of events

to be expected depends upon the size of the population and the incidence
of disease or death in the community. Knowledge of these background
rates of disease and deaths, particularly age-specific disease incidence
rates, allows estimation of the expected numbers of coincidental events...

If the same or similar events affect others in the same age group around
the same time but those others did not receive the suspect vaccine(s), then
a coincidental event is more likely. There may also be evidence showing
that the event is not related to immunization.

With increasing awareness of AEFI surveillance, even health staff may

report more coincidental events. Also, with the introduction of a new
vaccine, there is a tendency to report any AEFI, including coincidental
events. It is crucial to differentiate these reported coincidental events
from potential signals.

48
From Table 21
The main objective is to present the evidence showing that there is no
indication that the AEFI is a vaccine-related reaction or immunization-
error related and, that the most likely explanation is a temporal
association between the event and vaccine/vaccination. This
communication can be challenging when there is widespread belief that
the event was caused by immunization.

Sometimes, it may be useful to enlist further expert investigation to

ensure that the event was truly coincidental. The potential for
coincidental events to harm the immunization programme through false
attribution is immense.

49
 APPENDIX B

Extracts from online new reports of

UN stealth sterilization in Kenya
using tetanus and polio vaccines
_________________________________________________

LifeSiteNews

‘A mass sterilization exercise’:

Kenyan doctors find anti-fertility agent in UN tetanus vaccine
Steve Weatherbe
November 6, 2014

According to a statement released Tuesday by the Kenya Catholic Doctors

Association, the organization has found an antigen that causes miscarriages in a
vaccine being administered to 2.3 million girls and women by the World Health
Organization and UNICEF. Priests throughout Kenya reportedly are advising their
congregations to refuse the vaccine.

“We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They
tested positive for the HCG antigen,” Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical
Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. “They were all laced with HCG.”

Dr. Ngare, spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, stated in a
bulletin released November 4, “This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO
campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful
population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating
vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third
round of immunization but was ignored.”

...Responds Dr. Ngare [to government denials]: “Either we are lying or the
government is lying. But ask yourself, ‘What reason do the Catholic doctors have
for lying?’” Dr. Ngare added: “The Catholic Church has been here in Kenya
providing health care and vaccinating for 100 years for longer than Kenya has
existed as a country.”

50
Dr. Ngare told LifeSiteNews that several things alerted doctors in the Church’s far-
flung medical system of 54 hospitals, 83 health centres, and 17 medical and nursing
schools to the possibility the anti-tetanus campaign was secretly an anti-fertility
campaign.

Why, they ask does it involve an unprecedented five shots (or “jabs” as they are
known, in Kenya) over more than two years and why is it applied only to women of
child-bearing years, and why is it not being conducted without the usual fanfare of
government publicity?

“Usually we give a series three shots over two to three years, we give it anyone who
comes into the clinic with an open wound, men, women or children.” said Dr. Ngare.
“If this is intended to inoculate children in the womb, why give it to girls starting at
15 years? You cannot get married till you are 18. The usual way to vaccinate children
is to wait till they are six weeks old.”

But it is the five-vaccination regime that is most alarming. “The only time tetanus
vaccine has been given in five doses is when it is used as a carrier in fertility
regulating vaccines laced with the pregnancy hormone, Human Chorionic
Gonadotropin (HCG) developed by WHO in 1992.”

It is HCG that has been found in all six samples sent to the University of Nairobi
medical laboratory and another in South Africa. The bishops and doctors warn that
injecting women with HCG , which mimics a natural hormone produced by pregnant
women, causes them to develop antibodies against it. When they do get pregnant, and
produce their own version of HCG, it triggers the production of antibodies that cause
a miscarriage.

...Ngare said WHO tried to bring the same anti-fertility program into Kenya in the
1990s. “We alerted the government and it stopped the vaccination. But this time they
haven’t done so.”

Ngare also contrasted the secrecy of this campaign with the usual fanfare
accompanying national vaccination efforts. “They usually bring all the stakeholders
together three months before the campaign, like they did with polio a little while ago.
And they use staff in all the centres to give out the vaccine.” But with this anti-tetanus
campaign, “only a few operatives from the government are allowed to give it out.
They come with a police escort. They take it away with them when they are finished.
Why not leave it with the local medical staff to administer?”

51
...LifeSiteNews has obtained a UN report on an August 1992 meeting at its world
headquarters in Geneva of 10 scientists from “Australia, Europe, India and the USA”
and 10 “women’s health advocates” from around the world, to discuss the use of
“fertility regulating vaccines.” It describes the “Human Chorionic Gonadotropin
vaccine” as the most advanced.

One million Kenyan women and girls have been vaccinated so far with another 1.3
million to go. The vaccination is targeting women, according to the government, in
order to inoculate their children in the womb against tetanus as well. The government
says 550 children die of tetanus yearly.

SOURCE: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a-mass-sterilization-exercise-kenyan-
doctors-find-anti-fertility-agent-in-u

**************************************************

18 March 2018

Sterilization Vaccines Found in Kenya

Recently, former Kenyan president, Raila Odinga, made a public televised statement
regarding a tetanus vaccine given between 2014 – 2015 to approximately 500,000
women that was confirmed to contain a sterilization hormone:

“Today, we can confirm to the country that the Catholic Church was right. Hundreds
of thousands of our girls and women, aged between 14 and 49, from the fastest
growing populations in the country will not have children, because of the state-
sponsored sterilization that was sold to the country as tetanus vaccination,” he
declared.

This story first broke several years ago thanks to the work by research journalist,
Christina England, who was contacted by the Catholic Health Commissions in Kenya
where she was told by a Dr. Ngare that they suspected the tetanus vaccine was causing
infertility. After lots of denial by the vaccine manufacturers, it has now been proven
that the vaccine in question did indeed contain the hormone HCG. Dr. Ngare and his
team had 6 tetanus vaccines sent to the laboratory and they were found to all contain
an HCG antigen.

52
What is sinister about this issue is that this particular vaccine was only given to
females between the ages of 14 – 49. The ideal age range for getting pregnant...

Also in Kenya, another vaccine, this time for polio, was found to have sterilization
agents in it as well. It was meant to be given to children under the age of 5. Two of
the six polio vaccines that were sent to the lab for testing, contained estradiol, a
female sex hormone, and giving estradiol to men can make them infertile.

SOURCE:

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/03/18/ex-prime-minister-exposes-tetanus-
vaccine-in-kenya-as-a-targeted-mass-sterilization-program/

**************************************************

Wikipedia rejection of allegations

[from its entry on Human chorionic gonadotropin]

In order to induce a stronger immune response, some versions of human chorionic

gonadotropin-based anti-fertility vaccines were designed as conjugates of the β
subunit of HCG covalently linked to tetanus toxoid. It has been alleged that a non-
conjugated tetanus vaccine used in developing countries is laced with a human
chorionic gonadotropin based anti-fertility drug and is distributed as a means of mass
sterilization. This charge has been vigorously denied by the World Health
Organization (WHO) and UNICEF. Others have argued that a hCG laced vaccine
could not be used for sterilization since the effects of the anti-fertility vaccines are
reversible (requiring booster doses to maintain immunity) and a non-conjugated
vaccine is likely to be ineffective. Finally, independent testing of the tetanus vaccine
by Kenya’s health authorities has revealed no traces of the human chorionic
gonadotropin hormone.

53