Polio Vaccines Now The #1 Cause of Polio Paralysis

The Polio Global Eradication Initiative (PGEI), founded in 1988 by the World Health Organization, Rotary International, UNICEF, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, holds up India as a prime example of its success at eradicating polio, stating on its website (Jan. 11 2012) that “India has made unprecedented progress against polio in the last two years and on 13 January, 2012, India will reach a major milestone – a 12-month period without any case of polio being recorded.”

This report, however, is highly misleading, as an estimated 100-180 Indian children are diagnosed with vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP) each year. In fact, the clinical presentation of the disease, including paralysis, caused by VAPP is indistinguishable from that caused by wild polioviruses, making the PGEI’s pronouncements all the more suspect.1

According to the Polio Global Eradication Initiative’s own statistics2 there were 42 cases of wild-type polio (WPV) reported in India in 2010, indicating that vaccine-induced cases of polio paralysis (100-180 annually) outnumber wild-type cases by a factor of 3-4. Even if we put aside the important question of whether or not the PGEI is accurately differentiating between wild and vaccine-associated polio cases in their statistics, we still must ask ourselves: should not the real-world effects of immunization, both good and bad, be included in PGEI’s measurement of success?

For the dozens of Indian children who develop vaccine-induced paralysis every year, the PGEI’s recent declaration of India as nearing “polio free” status, is not only disingenuous, but could be considered an attempt to minimize their obvious liability in having transformed polio from a natural disease vector into a manmade (iatrogenic) one.

VAPP is, in fact, the predominant form of the disease in developed countries like the US since 1973.3  The problem of vaccine-induced polio paralysis was so severe that the The United States moved to the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in 2000, after the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended altogether eliminating the live-virus oral polio vaccine (OPV), which is still used throughout the third world, despite the known risks.

Polio underscores the need for a change in the way we look at so-called “vaccine preventable” diseases as a whole. In most people with a healthy immune system, a poliovirus infection does not even generate symptoms. Only rarely does the infection produce minor symptoms, e.g. sore throat, fever, gastrointestinal disturbances, and influenza-like illness. In only 3% of infections does virus gain entry to the central nervous system, and then, in only 1-5 in 1000 cases does the infection progress to paralytic disease.

Due to the fact that polio spreads through the fecal-oral route (i.e. the virus is transmitted from the stool of an infected person to the mouth of another person through a contaminated object, e.g. utensil) focusing on hygiene, sanitation and proper nutrition (to support innate immunity) is a logical way to prevent transmission in the first place, as well as reducing morbidity associated with an infection when it does occur.

Instead, a large portion of the world’s vaccines are given to the third world as “charity,” when the underlying conditions of economic impoverishment, poor nutrition, chemical exposures, and socio-political unrest are never addressed. You simply can’t vaccinate people out of these conditions, and as India’s new epidemic of vaccine-induced polio cases clearly demonstrates, the “cure” may be far worse than the disease itself.

 

© [2012] GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter

55% of Babies, Toddlers Had ‘Systemic Reaction’ After COVID Vaccine, CDC Survey Shows

By Margaret Menge

“More than 55% of children ranging in age between 6 months and 2 years had a “systemic reaction” after their first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, according to data released Sept. 1 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In addition, almost 60% had a reaction to the second dose of the Moderna vaccine, in the CDC survey of more than 13,000 children.”

Read Full Article…

COVID-19 Vaccine Participant Develops Neurological Symptoms, AstraZeneca Pauses Trial

By Jeremy Loffredo

On Tuesday, AstraZeneca announced a pause on its experimental COVID-19 vaccine trial after a woman in the UK developed a “suspected serious reaction.” The company is also conducting trials in the U.S., South Africa and Brazil, with enrollment in all these countries on hold for now.

AstraZeneca is partnering with researchers at Oxford University to develop this vaccine, and is testing it on children as young as 5 years old

Vaccinated Vs. Unvaccinated Pilot Study: Early Vaccination Sees Exponential Increase in Chronic Disorders#Vaccines#Parent#Pregnancy

Written By: Jefferey Jaxen

The move towards mandatory vaccination is no longer a conspiracy theory. California Senate Bill 277 snapped families into a reality where informed consent and health freedom do not apply.

Presently, the American people are facing 173 vaccine-related bills in 40 states. The language of many of the new bills aims to increase tracking, target non-vaccinating families, force vaccine schedules, and further persecute families who choose not to accept vaccines; the private products of for-profit, legally protected pharmaceutical companies. The corporate media and medical industries have thrown their full influence behind Big Pharma’s transparent ‘safe and effective’ messaging. At the same time, both industries are simultaneously censoring discussions around the fraud, dangers, mounting injuries, and criminal behavior inherent within the vaccine industry and those pushing for mandatory vaccination. A central point of contention…

Continue to the Article Here

NIH: Marketing HPV vaccines via censorship?#censor#censorship#Vaccines

By Norma Erickson

As an employee of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), it is certainly within Dr. Mark Schiffman’s job description to write articles promoting human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. After all, his employer owns patents on HPV vaccine production technologies and receives licensing fees from the sales of HPV vaccines.

The HPV vaccine, Gardasil, based largely on technology developed at NIH and produced by Merck & Co., was approved by the FDA in June 2006. As early as Feb 2007, an article was published in The NIH Record, titled, From Lab to Market: The HPV Vaccine proclaiming, “Perhaps no other recent product on the market demonstrates successful health care technology transfer better than the HPV vaccine.” What a great commercial success!

The NIH, funded by taxpayers, also maintains a forum for scientific discourse, called PubMed Commons which hopefully “will leverage the social power of the internet to encourage constructive criticism and high quality discussions of scientific issues that will both enhance understanding and provide new avenues of collaboration within the community”.

In December 2016, Dr. Schiffman and a few industry-paid consultants published an article titled “Carcinogenic human papillomavirus infection.”

January 19, 2017, the eminent pathologist Dr. Sin Hang Lee commented via PubMed Commons stating:

Schiffman and colleagues finally admitted in the end of the abstract that implementation of HPV vaccination and screening globally remains a challenge. However, the authors did not present the whole truth required for a balanced analysis.

It took nearly a month for Dr. Mark Schiffman to respond to Dr. Lee’s public comment with reassurances that the efficacy and safety profile of Gardasil had been well established.

Five days later, Dr. Lee responded to Dr. Schiffman saying:

Dr. Schiffman’s responses to my initial comment on the Primer needs rebuttal to point out its misleading and obfuscating statements.

Almost immediately, the discussion was effectively shut down by the removal of Dr. Lee’s comments. Does this not seem like a gross violation of the public trust in an organization such as NIH which has promised to ‘encourage constructive criticism and high quality discussions of scientific issues’?

Is it not a serious conflict of interest for NIH moderators to remove Dr. Sin Hang Lee’s dissenting comments from a site that is supposed to be promoting high quality scientific discussions?

The full text of the comment, response and rebuttal was downloaded before removal by one of the readers and can be read here.

Dr. Lee said he is discussing a very serious scientific medical issue. He did not find any inappropriate language in his comments or rebuttals.

Therefore, on behalf of thousands of families around the world dealing with serious new medical conditions after Gardasil administration, the SaneVax team requests that NIH moderators restore the original comment, response and rebuttal to the PubMed Commons’ website. It is in the public’s best interest that Dr. Schiffman and Dr. Lee continue their scientific debate.

Alternatively, the NIH moderators must publicly publish valid reasons for the removal of Dr. Lee’s comments.

In the words of Winston Churchill:

 In science you don’t need to be polite, you merely have to be right.

Open, honest debate is the only way to restore public confidence. Censorship will not work.

This Article is Compliments of SaneVax

NIH: Marketing HPV vaccines via censorship?

A Letter From Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Robert De Niro to American Journalists#Real#Vaccines#Autism

By  and

On the occasion of our announcement of the World Mercury Project’s $100K challenge, we want to address America’s reporters, journalists, columnists, editors, network anchors, on-air doctors and news division producers.

We especially want to reach out to those of you who have made a point of assuring the public about the safety of the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal. It’s our hope that this challenge will elevate this important debate beyond name calling and prompt a genuine examination of the relevant science. The American public is entitled to an honest, probing and vigorous discussion about this critical public health issue—a debate based on facts, not rooted in fear, or on blind faith in regulators and the pharmaceutical industry.

We are both pro-vaccine. We need to say this at the outset to contravene the reflexive public relations ploy of labeling every vaccine safety advocate “anti-vaccine.” As the British Medical Journal pointed out last week, that epithet is a derogatory attack designed to marginalize vaccine safety advocates and derail reasoned debate:

“It stigmatizes the mere act of even asking an open question about what is known and unknown about the safety of vaccines.”…

Continue to the Letter Here