Vaccine News – Study – Metals Debris Found in Vaccine Supply

Lead developer of HPV vaccine admits it’s a giant, deadly scam
Thursday, September 29, 2016 by: Samantha Debbie
(NaturalNews) An expert involved in the approval process for the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix, is speaking out about the dangers and why you shouldn’t risk your child’s health in getting them.
Diane Harper, M.D., professor and chair of the department of Family and Geriatric Medicine at the University of Louisville, revealed at the 4th International Conference on Vaccination that HPV vaccines are essentially worthless, because rates of cervical cancer in the U.S. are extremely low anyway.
Her speech was intended to promote the benefits of vaccines, but she changed her mind and went in a different direction in an effort to “clean her conscience about the deadly vaccines,” according to The Daily Sheeple.
Dr. Harper, a former vaccine research scientist for Merck, said she wouldn’t be able to sleep at night unless she aired the truth about HPV vaccines. In her speech, given in Reston, Virginia, she said that 70 percent of all HPV infections resolve themselves without treatment, and 90 percent do so within two years.
Over 40 young girls reported to have died from HPV vaccines
All safety trials for HPV vaccines were done on 15-year-olds, said Dr. Harper, and not 9-year-olds, the demographic for which the immunizations are now recommended. Furthermore, there is a real risk associated with these vaccines, she added.
More than 15,000 girls have experienced adverse side effects from Gardasil, according to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). A number likely to be far higher in reality, since many vaccine side effects go unreported.
At least 44 girls are known to have died from these vaccines. Some side effects experienced by those receiving the HPV vaccines include seizures, blood clots, brain inflammation, lupus and Guillain Barre Syndrome, a rare but serious autoimmune deficiency that causes the immune system to attack and damage nerve cells.
While the majority of those with GBS recover, the disorder may cause muscle weakness, difficulty breathing, paralysis and sometimes death.
As with most vaccines, parents are usually not made aware of the risks.
HPV vaccines work on only four of the 40 strains of the venereal disease

How Vaccinated Kids Infect The Non-Vaccinated
Posted on:Sunday, February 8th 2015 at 3:45 pm Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2015
With the thousands of mainstream media articles blaming the non-vaccinated for disease outbreaks, this article will provide a necessary counterbalance by showing the vaccinated can (and do) infect the non-vaccinated…
A groundbreaking study published in 2013 in the journal Vaccine titled, “Comparison of virus shedding after lived attenuated and pentavalent reassortant rotavirus vaccine,” referenced the fact that rotavirus vaccines contain live viruses capable of causing infection, shedding and even transmission to non-vaccinated subjects:
“In fact, transmission of these two rotavirus vaccines or vaccine-reassortment strains to unvaccinated contacts has been detected [9–13][1], even in the absence of symptoms.”
One of the five studies referenced in the passage above confirming that the vaccinated can infect the non-vaccinated, “Sibling transmission of vaccine-derived rotavirus (RotaTeq) associated with rotavirus gastroenteritis,” published in 2009, is the first report in the literature to identify the transmission of rotavirus vaccine-derived virus to unvaccinated contacts resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis requiring emergency medical attention:
“We document here the occurrence of vaccine-derived rotavirus (RotaTeq [Merck and Co, Whitehouse Station, NJ]) transmission from a vaccinated infant to an older, unvaccinated sibling, resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis that required emergency department care.”
The study also indicated that two of the five strains of rotavirus within the Rotateq reassorted to produce a more harmful virus either within the vaccinated infant or within the subsequently infected unvaccinated sibling:
“Results of our investigation suggest that reassortment between vaccine component strains of genotypes P7[5]G1 and P1A[8]G6 occurred during replication either in the vaccinated infant or in the older sibling, raising the possibility that this reassortment may have increased the virulence of the vaccine-derived virus.”
This phenomenon of Rotateq vaccine strain reassortment and subsequent gastoenteritis infection in vaccine recipients was also observed in a 2012 study in 61 infants.[2] Additionally, A Nicaraguan study published in 2012 found “the widespread use of the RotaTeq vaccine has led to the introduction of vaccine genes into circulating human RVs.,” revealing that the widespread introduction of the vaccine strain has altered the genetic makeup of wild-type rotavirus that now infects exposed populations.[3]
It has been estimated that between 80-100% of infants shed rotavirus at some point during 25-28 days after vaccination.[4] [5] This reveals that the vaccinated, contrary to widespread assumptions about the the risks represented by the non-vaccinated, pose a clear risk of infecting the non-vaccinated, and may be producing the ideal virological conditions for the recombination of diverse rotavirus strains into vaccine-resistant ‘super viruses.’
Another case study, reported on in the National Vaccine Information Center’s document on vaccine viral shedding:
“In 2010, a case report was published in Pediatrics describing a 30-month old healthy boy who had never received rotavirus vaccine and was infected with vaccine strain rotavirus. 237 He ended up in the emergency room with severe gastroenteritis 10 days after his healthy two-month old brother was given a dose of Merck’s RotaTeq vaccine. A stool sample was taken in the emergency room and came back positive for RotaTeq vaccine derived strains after RT-PCR testing.”
The authors of the case report noted that “transmission of RotaTeq strains to unvaccinated contacts was not evaluated in the pivotal [pre-licensure] clinical trials.” They added that  both RotaTeq and Rotarix [GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals] vaccines have “the potential for vaccine-virus transmission to contacts.”

Study 2014 Feb 26 – Comparison of virus shedding after lived attenuated and pentavalent reassortant rotavirus vaccine.
Transmission of rotavirus vaccine or vaccine-reassortant strains to unvaccinated contacts has been reported. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate and characterize the nature of vaccine-virus shedding among rotavirus vaccine recipients. Two groups of healthy infants who received a complete course of RotaTeq (RV5) or Rotarix (RV2) were enrolled (between March 2010 and June 2011) to compare fecal shedding for one month after each vaccine dose. Shedding was assessed using both enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Eighty-seven infants (34 girls and 53 boys) were enrolled in the study. After the first vaccine dose, the peak time of virus shedding occurred between day 4 and day 7, with positive detection rates of 80-90% by real-time RT-PCR and 20-30% by EIA. In both groups, vaccine shedding occurred as early as one day and as late as 25-28 days. Mixed effects logistic regression analysis of real-time RT-PCR data showed no significant differences between two groups when shedding rates were compared after the first vaccine dose (odds ratio [OR] 1.26; P=0.71) or after the second vaccine dose (odds ratio [OR] 1.26; P=0.99). However, infants receiving RV2 shed significantly higher viral loads than those receiving RV5 when compared after the first vaccine dose (P=0.001) and after the second dose (P=0.039). In terms of shedding rates detected by real-time RT-PCR, vaccine uptake of RV5 or RV2 among infants in Taiwan was comparable. Clinical significance of higher shedding viral loads in RV2 should be further observed.

Study 2010 Feb – Sibling transmission of vaccine-derived rotavirus (RotaTeq) associated with rotavirus gastroenteritis.
Although rotavirus vaccines are known to be shed in stools, transmission of vaccine-derived virus to unvaccinated contacts resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis has not been reported to our knowledge. We document here the occurrence of vaccine-derived rotavirus (RotaTeq [Merck and Co, Whitehouse Station, NJ]) transmission from a vaccinated infant to an older, unvaccinated sibling, resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis that required emergency department care. Results of our investigation suggest that reassortment between vaccine component strains of genotypes P7[5]G1 and P1A[8]G6 occurred during replication either in the vaccinated infant or in the older sibling, raising the possibility that this reassortment may have increased the virulence of the vaccine-derived virus. Both children remain healthy 11 months after this event and are without underlying medical conditions.

CDC – The Emerging Risks of Live Virus & Virus Vectored Vaccines: Vaccine Strain Virus Infection, Shedding & Transmission
Referenced Report from the National Vaccine Information Center
by Barbara Loe Fisher Co-founder & President
Your Health. Your Family. Your Choice.
Can People Receiving Live Virus Vaccines Transmit Vaccine Strain Virus to Others?
Public health officials say that unvaccinated children pose a big danger to those around them and even threaten the health of fully vaccinated children and adults because vaccines can fail to prevent infection in vaccinated persons.
Today, the most common argument used to justify “no exceptions” mandatory vaccination laws is that unvaccinated people pose a serious health threat to others who “cannot be vaccinated,” such as the immunocompromised.
Some parents of unvaccinated children are asking the opposite question:
Could my unvaccinated or immune compromised child get sick from coming in contact with a recently vaccinated person?
When it comes to live virus vaccines, the short answer is:
Yes.
During a viral infection, live virus is shed in the body fluids of those who are infected for varying amounts of time and can be transmitted to others. Vaccine strain live virus is also shed for varying amounts of time in the body fluids of vaccinated people and can be transmitted to others. Although public health officials maintain that live attenuated virus vaccines rarely cause complications in the vaccinated person and that vaccine strain viral shedding rarely causes disease in close contacts of the recently vaccinated, it is important to be aware that vaccine strain live virus infection can sometimes cause serious complications in vaccinated persons and vaccine strain live viruses can be shed and transmitted to others with serious or even fatal consequences

Censored Study of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated sees Daylight
by James O. Grundvig
The study defined NDD as “Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and/or a learning disability.”
The Study Accepted, Released, Censored
Frontiers Journal received the study on September 17, 2016. After a two-month peer review process, published it on November 21 for its “68,000 on board editors” from institutions around the world (www.frontiersin.org), with the National Institute of Health (NIH) and Harvard University being the top two providing the science editors.
Over the course of four days, more than 80,000 views of the study found it important enough to read, going “viral” according to one familiar with its release. Then on November 28, the bottom fell out when Frontiers scrapped the publication. In one week, it went from being accepted, published, and then retracted. The abstract can still be found online.
The paper, however, wasn’t retracted; it was “unaccepted,” according to Mawson via email. That means Frontiers didn’t retract it, since it was never officially published. What’s left for a study after its accepted, reviewed 80,000 times in less than 100 hours? . . . Censorship.
Beyond that clarification, Mawson wrote: “I am not allowed to comment on the paper/work by my Dean.”
Melissa Cochrane, the communications manager for Frontiers Journal, which is headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, replied via email:
“As we have previously noted, this article was provisionally accepted but not published. In response to concerns raised regarding the abstract and the provisional PDF — which were made provisionally available online — Frontiers then reopened its review. Following further manuscript assessment by the Field Chief Editor of Frontiers in Public Health, in consultation with an external expert, the manuscript was subsequently rejected, not retracted as retraction can only occur once a paper has been officially published and indexed.
“The rejection was due to severe limitations in the validity of the results.”
A day later, Ms. Cochrane replied to an email seeking clarification on the “rejection” process, writing:
“The reasons for the rejection were communicated in more detail to the corresponding author but I am unable to give you the reviewer’s comments as the Frontiers’ review process involves an open and collaborative dialogue between the reviewers and the authors, all of whom participate with the understanding and security that Frontiers will keep these exchanges confidential, as explained in our terms of use. You can read more about the Frontiers peer review process here.”
Vaccines Cause Health Issues Big and Small

Metals Debris Found in Vaccine Supply
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
A landmark new study has found metal debris and biological contamination in every human vaccine tested. The study should have profound and immediate impact on public health policies and vaccine industry procedures around the globe.
A team of scientists used a highly sensitive technology—an Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope equipped with an x-ray microprobe—to scan for solid contaminants in 44 samples of 30 vaccines. The researchers reported their results in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination. They found widespread contamination by toxic aluminum salts, red blood cells of unknown origin and inorganic, foreign particle debris in aggregates, clusters and independent particulates. The composition of those clusters, the researchers observe, are consistent with “burnt waste.”

Study – New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro-and Nanocontamination
International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination
Abstract
Vaccines  are  being  under  investigation  for  the  possible  side  effects  they  can cause. In order to supply new information, an electron-microscopy investigation method was applied to the study of vaccines, aimed at verifying the presence of solid contaminants by means of an Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope equipped  with  an  X-ray  microprobe.  The  results  of  this  new  investigation  show the presence of micro- and nanosized particulate matter composed of inorganic elements in vaccines’ samples which is not declared among the components and whose unduly presence is, for the time being, inexplicable. A considerable part of  those  particulate  contaminants  have  already  been  verified  in  other  matrices and  reported  in  literature  as  non  biodegradable  and  non  biocompatible.  The evidence  collected  is  suggestive  of  some  hypotheses  correlated  to  diseases  that are mentioned and briefly discussed.

Fewer Same-Day Vaccines—at an Older Age, Says Study

Fewer Same-Day Vaccines—at an Older Age, Says Study
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons recently reported a link between the number of simultaneous vaccinations a child receives and the risk of serious injury or death. The report cites a 2012 study that looked at raw data from the government Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The authors looked at VAERS data on infants from 1990 through 2010—about 38,000 reports in total. The study found that infants receiving multiple vaccines concurrently, as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), are significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die, compared with infants who received fewer vaccinations in one visit. Age was also a factor: adverse effects were more likely to lead to hospitalization or death in younger infants.
The CDC recommends a combination of up to eight vaccines during a single visit to the pediatrician. Medical literature makes it clear that this is not for the child. It is because parents cannot be trusted to bring their children back again and again to receive the full battery of vaccines. The government’s approach to vaccine administration, with one shot piled on top of another on top of another, has never been tested for safety in clinical trials.
The author points out that skeptics of using VAERS data to draw conclusions about the safety of vaccines claim that the database doesn’t prove conclusively that the adverse events reported in VAERS are caused by vaccination. But if that’s the case, why does the CDC regularly twist VAERS data to justify its recommendations?
For example, almost 9% of the adverse reactions reported for the live attenuated influenza vaccine, for example, are classified as “serious” (fatalities, cardiovascular events, neurological debilities, etc), yet CDC researchers concluded from these same adverse event reports that the results were “reassuring.” Reassuring to whom?
Speaking of the flu vaccine, a new study once again raises the question of whether mercury (still used as a flu shot preservative) increases the risk of autism.

Study: Altered urinary porphyrins and mercury exposure as biomarkers for autism severity in Egyptian children with autism spectrum disorder
Abstract
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a complex neurodevelopmental disorder that affects social, communication, and behavioral development. Recent evidence supported but also questioned the hypothetical role of compounds containing mercury (Hg) as contributors to the development of ASD. Specific alterations in the urinary excretion of porphyrin-containing ring catabolites have been associated with exposure to Hg in ASD patients. In the present study, the level of urinary porphyrins, as biomarkers of Hg toxicity in children with ASD, was evaluated, and its correlation with severity of the autistic behavior further explored. A total of 100 children was enrolled in the present study. They were classified into three groups: children with ASD (40), healthy controls (40), and healthy siblings of the ASD children (20). Children with ASD were diagnosed using DSM-IV-TR, ADI-R, and CARS tests. Urinary porphyrins were evaluated within the three groups using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), after plasma evaluation of mercury (Hg) and lead (Pb) in the same groups. Results showed that children with ASD had significantly higher levels of Hg, Pb, and the porphyrins pentacarboxyporphyrin, coproporphyrin, precoproporphyrin, uroporphyrins, and hexacarboxyporphyrin compared to healthy controls and healthy siblings of the ASD children. However, there was no significant statistical difference in the level of heptacarboxyporphyrin among the three groups, while a significant positive correlation between the levels of coproporphyrin and precoproporphyrin and autism severity was observed. Mothers of ASD children showed a higher percentage of dental amalgam restorations compared to the mothers of healthy controls suggesting that high Hg levels in children with ASD may relate to the increased exposure to Hg from maternal dental amalgam during pregnancy and lactation. The results showed that the ASD children in the present study had increased blood Hg and Pb levels compared with healthy control children indicating that disordered porphyrin metabolism might interfere with the pathology associated with the autistic neurologic phenotype. The present study indicates that coproporphyrin and precoproporhyrin may be utilized as possible biomarkers for heavy metal exposure and autism severity in children with ASD.

Report: Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990–2010
Abstract
In this study, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, 1990–2010, was investigated; cases that specified either hospitalization or death were identified among 38,801 reports of infants. Based on the types of vaccines reported, the actual number of vaccine doses administered, from 1 to 8, was summed for each case. Linear regression analysis of hospitalization rates as a function of (a) the number of reported vaccine doses and (b) patient age yielded a linear relationship with r 2 = 0.91 and r 2 = 0.95, respectively. The hospitalization rate increased linearly from 11.0% (107 of 969) for 2 doses to 23.5% (661 of 2817) for 8 doses and decreased linearly from 20.1% (154 of 765) for children aged <0.1 year to 10.7% (86 of 801) for children aged 0.9 year. The rate ratio (RR) of the mortality rate for 5–8 vaccine doses to 1–4 vaccine doses is 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4–1.7), indicating a statistically significant increase from 3.6% (95% CI, 3.2–3.9%) deaths associated with 1–4 vaccine doses to 5.5% (95% CI, 5.2–5.7%) associated with 5–8 vaccine doses. The male-to-female mortality RR was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.3–1.5). Our findings show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths. Since vaccines are given to millions of infants annually, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants might receive. Finding ways to increase vaccine safety should be the highest priority.

Study: Combining Childhood Vaccinesat One Visit Is Not Safe
ABSTRACT
Although health authorities including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claim that childhood vaccines are safe and recommend combining multiple vaccines during one visit, a review of data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows a dose-dependent association between the number of vaccines administered simultaneously and the likelihood of hospitalization or death for an adverse reaction. Additionally, younger age at the time of the adverse reaction is associated with a higher risk of hospitalization or death

Flu Vaccine is the most Dangerous Vaccine in the U. S. based on Settled Cases for Injuries

Flu Vaccine is the most Dangerous Vaccine in the U. S. based on Settled Cases for Injuries
Attorney Howard Gold of Gold Law Firm, who settled a case for GBS due to a flu vaccine in 2011, remarked:
Petitioners have three (3) years from the onset of the injury (or two years from date of death) to file a claim. Gold states that the “Program is not used as much as it could be because the American public is just not aware of it. I receive at least 5 calls a month from individuals who cannot obtain compensation because the deadline has passed. They just found out about it too late. We all need to do a better job in getting the word out to the public that the Program exists.” (Source.)
In November 2013, a healthy 19-year old young man died from a routine exam that included the flu vaccine. Chandler Webb received the flu shot on October 15th, and then died on November 19th, 28 days later. Since the flu shot is considered safe in the medical field, doctors waited too long to suspect that the flu shot was causing Chandler’s rapidly deteriorating medical condition, according to his mother. She believes that if they had investigated the adverse reaction to the flu shot immediately, he might still be alive today.

Just a quick cursory view of cases that are being compensated by this vaccine court shows that the most cases, by far, are cases for GBS and the flu vaccine.
The U.S Court of Federal Claims provides a referral list of attorneys that specialize in representing clients wanting to file claims for vaccine damages. The list is here, and contains 123 attorneys.
One of the law firms representing clients in the Vaccine Court is Maglio, Christopher, & Toale. This law firm has actually listed cases they have settled in the past couple of years here.
From what appears to be some point in 2010 through 2013, they have settled 132 cases

Preliminary Results: Surveillance for Guillain-Barré Syndrome After Receipt of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine — United States, 2009–2010
GBS incidence was calculated and compared for the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, which were estimated by age group, using data from CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and National 2009 H1N1 Flu Survey (NHFS) telephone survey data for the counties in the EIP catchment areas, using methods published previously (4). The total person-time of follow-up was calculated by multiplying the population under surveillance by the number of days since the start of surveillance, October 1, 2009. Person-time at risk for GBS in the vaccinated population was calculated by multiplying the number of vaccinees by 42 days (or the number of days from vaccination to the end of the surveillance period if <42 days) (1). Children aged 6 months–9 years who received a second dose of 2009 H1N1 vaccine were presumed to have received it 28 days after the first dose, as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices,¶ giving them an additional 28 days of person-time at risk. To calculate the corresponding person-time in the unvaccinated population, the person time at risk for GBS was summed among the vaccinated population and then subtracted from the total person-time of follow-up under surveillance.
Incidence among the vaccinated population was calculated by dividing the number of GBS cases vaccinated within the risk window by the total amount of person-time at risk following vaccination. Incidence among the unvaccinated population was calculated by dividing the number of GBS cases unexposed to vaccine or exposed to vaccine outside the risk window by the total amount of person-time unexposed to 2009 H1N1 vaccine. Bootstrapping methods were used to estimate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the rate ratios that incorporated the variance of vaccine coverage estimates (5). A Poisson distribution was assumed for the occurrence of cases and a normal distribution for the vaccine coverage estimates; the Mantel-Haenszel method was used for age-adjusted CIs. A temporal scan statistic was used to assess for any significant clustering in the interval between vaccination and illness onset in vaccinated cases (6).
During October 1, 2009–May 10, 2010, a total of 529 reports of potential GBS were identified by EIP, of which 326 met the GBS case criteria. Of the 326 persons with GBS, 27 had documentation of 2009 H1N1 vaccination in the 42 days preceding illness onset, 274 did not receive vaccine, and the vaccine status of 25 was either unknown (six) or pending ascertainment (19) (Table 1). Sixteen of the 27 (59%) with documentation of 2009 H1N1 vaccination also reported antecedent illness symptoms in the 42 days before GBS onset; 78% of unvaccinated persons with GBS (215 of 274) reported antecedent symptoms (p=0.04). No clustering among vaccinated persons was observed in the period between vaccination and illness onset (p=0.54). Among the 27 GBS patients with 2009 H1N1 vaccination, four required ventilator support, and one remained hospitalized 30 days after GBS onset; among the 274 GBS patients who did not receive 2009 H1N1 vaccination, 37 (14%) required ventilator support, and 34 (12%) remained hospitalized after 30 days. Eight (2%) of the 326 GBS patients died (from any cause); none of the eight had received the 2009 H1N1 vaccine within 42 days of illness onset.
Among patients hospitalized through March 31, 2010, comparison of the incidence of GBS among those who received 2009 H1N1 vaccine and those who did not receive the vaccine revealed an age-adjusted rate ratio of 1.77 (CI = 1.12–2.56) (Table 2). If this preliminary rate ratio is confirmed in end-of-surveillance analyses, the attributable rate of GBS would be 0.71 per 100,000 person-years, corresponding to an attributable risk of 0.8 excess cases of GBS per 1 million vaccinations.**

Risk of Guillain-Barré Syndrome Following H1N1 Influenza Vaccination in Quebec
RESULTS
During the active surveillance period, 61 possible GBS cases were reported to public health authorities. Seventy-seven possible GBS cases were retrospectively identified in the MEDECHO hospital admission database. Thirty-seven cases were found in both sources, for a total of 101 cases. For all 101, medical charts were retrieved and analyzed. Eighteen possible cases were excluded: 12 cases with a final diagnosis other than GBS, 2 recurrent GBS cases, 2 cases with disease onset before October 13, 2009, and 2 other cases with onset after March 31, 2010. Thus, 83 cases were included in the analysis. The overall GBS incidence rate in the study population, representing 3 623 046 person-years of observation, was 2.3 per 100 000.
Of the 83 confirmed GBS cases included in the analysis, 42 had been immunized before disease onset (1-121 days after immunization) and all had received the ASO3 adjuvant H1N1 vaccine. For 25 cases, disease onset was 8 or fewer weeks after the vaccine was administered and they were considered exposed, whereas the 17 other cases were immunized more than 8 weeks before disease onset and were considered unexposed. Thus, for the cohort analysis, 25 GBS cases were considered exposed and 58 cases were considered unexposed.
The characteristics of GBS cases according to exposure status are shown in Table 1. Forty-nine cases were classified in the Brighton level 1 category, 22 cases in level 2, and 12 cases in level 4. The distribution of cases according to diagnostic category was similar in exposed and unexposed cases. The percentage of male patients was 69%. The median age was 49 years (range, 1-89 years). The percentage of elderly patients was higher in the exposed group than the unexposed group. The majority of patients (96%) were hospitalized; 25% developed severe paralysis of the lower limbs and were unable to walk at some point; and 17% developed respiratory distress syndrome and required intubation and/or assisted ventilation. Four patients died, all of whom were older than 60 years. Conditions occurring within 1 month before GBS onset as reported in medical records included a respiratory tract infection or influenzalike illness in 36% of cases, gastroenteritis in 18%, and trauma in 4%. A history of infection during the month prior to hospitalization was less frequent in exposed than in unexposed patients. The median interval between disease onset and hospitalization was 5 days (range, 1-34 days).
Of the 83 confirmed GBS cases identified during the 6-month study period, 56 (67% of total) occurred during a 12-week period from October 18, 2009 (2009 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] week 42) to January 9, 2010 (2010 CDC week 1). The cluster was mostly explained by cases occurring in persons who were recently (≤8 weeks) immunized (22/56). Details on the distribution of cases are provided in eFigure 1.

Flu shot effectiveness for 2015-16 disappointing, data shows

Flu shot effectiveness for 2015-16 disappointing, data shows
Flu shot protects better than last year, but not good enough, experts say
It’s the time of year when experts crunch the numbers to see how well the flu shot worked. The result? Better than last year, but still not good enough.
“Overall, just shy of 45 to 50 per cent,” said Dr. Danuta Skowronski of the BC Centre for Disease Control, who presented the data to the Global Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness meeting at the World Health Organization last week.
“That’s lower than we would like to see, but it’s an improvement over the previous year, because it couldn’t be worse, frankly”
In 2014-15, the flu shot offered essentially zero protection against the circulating influenza virus of that season. Back then, the prevailing strain was H3N2.

A Shot Never Worth Taking: The Flu Vaccine ~ by Kelly Brogan, MD
•It’s not indicated: I’m sure you don’t know a single person who has died of the flu, and if you think you do, I can almost guarantee you that the diagnosis was not confirmed in a way that ruled out the 150-200 infectious pathogens that cause flu-like syndromes, none of which would be “covered” by the vaccine. Despite the astronomical figures the CDC flashes before us of “flu deaths”, there were 18 (yes, 1-8) confirmed in 2001, for example. Access to these figures is suspiciously concealed, but in the end, forget the stats, and use some common sense to see the fear mongering and sales marketing for what it is.
•It doesn’t work: The Cochrane Database – an objective, gold-standard assessment of available evidence has plainly stated, in TWO STUDIES, that there is no data to support efficacy in children under two, and in adults. Even the former Chief Vaccine Officer at the FDA states: “there is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza.” Liking the idea of being protected from the flu does not equate to being protected from the flu. That’s essentially what your vaccine-promoting doctor (or pharmacist) is engaging in – promoting an idea.

Study 2010: Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.
Main results:
The corresponding figures for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%). These differences were not likely to be due to chance. Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local harms and an estimated 1.6 additional cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome per million vaccinations. The harms evidence base is limited.

Study 2014: Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.
Main results:
On this basis, vaccination shows very limited effects: NNV 92 (95% CI 63 to 201) against ILI in pregnant women and NNV 27 (95% CI 18 to 185) against laboratory-confirmed influenza in newborns from vaccinated women.Live aerosol vaccines have an overall effectiveness corresponding to a NNV 46 (95% CI 29 to 115).The performance of one-dose or two-dose whole virion pandemic vaccines was higher, showing a NNV of 16 (95% CI 14 to 20) against ILI and a NNV of 35 (95% CI 33 to 47) against influenza, while a limited impact on hospitalisation was found (NNV 94, 95% CI 70 to 1022).Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local harms. No evidence of association with serious adverse events was found, but the harms evidence base was limited.The overall risk of bias in the included trials is unclear because it was not possible to assess the real impact of bias.

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Rates (SIDS) Linked To Increased Vaccination Dosage

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Rates (SIDS) Linked To Increased Vaccination Dosage

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
The Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute receives numerous emails every day. On this webpage you will find a small sample of these unsolicited personal letters linking vaccines to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). This webpage also includes an excerpt on SIDS from the U.S. Congressional records. We also recommend the Free SIDS Report on vaccines and Sudden Death. It includes numerous studies and other documentaion confirming a link between vaccines and infant fatalities. Be sure to read the most recent reader emails as well, which include numerous vaccine questions, comments, concerns, and unsolicited personal stories.

Special Reports

Study here:
Comparison of VAERS fetal-loss reports during three consecutive influenza seasons: Was there a synergistic fetal toxicity associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season?
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the number of inactivated-influenza vaccine–related spontaneous abortion and stillbirth (SB) reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database during three consecutive flu seasons beginning 2008/2009 and assess the relative fetal death reports associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season. The VAERS database was searched for reports of fetal demise following administration of the influenza vaccine/vaccines to pregnant women. Utilization of an independent surveillance survey and VAERS, two-source capture–recapture analysis estimated the reporting completeness in the 2009/2010 flu season. Capture–recapture demonstrated that the VAERS database captured about 13.2% of the total 1321 (95% confidence interval (CI): 815–2795) estimated reports, yielding an ascertainment-corrected rate of 590 fetal-loss reports per million pregnant women vaccinated (or 1 per 1695). The unadjusted fetal-loss report rates for the three consecutive influenza seasons beginning 2008/2009 were 6.8 (95% CI: 0.1–13.1), 77.8 (95% CI: 66.3–89.4), and 12.6 (95% CI: 7.2–18.0) cases per million pregnant women vaccinated, respectively. The observed reporting bias was too low to explain the magnitude increase in fetal-demise reporting rates in the VAERS database relative to the reported annual trends. Thus, a synergistic fetal toxicity likely resulted from the administration of both the pandemic (A-H1N1) and seasonal influenza vaccines during the 2009/2010 season

Take a look at these five Cochrane Database Reviews, published between 2006 and 2010, which call into serious question the claim that flu shots are the best way to stay healthy during the flu season.

Take a look at these five Cochrane Database Reviews, published between 2006 and 2010, which call into serious question the claim that flu shots are the best way to stay healthy during the flu season.
Last year, Cochrane reviewed the available scientific evidence that flu shots protect the elderly, and the results were abysmal. The authors concluded:
“The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older.”
Cochrane reviewers also evaluated whether or not flu shots given to health care workers can help protect the elderly patients in nursing homes with whom they work. The research did not find an effect from the vaccinations on laboratory-confirmed influenza. Influenza vaccinations were also not linked to a reduction in either pneumonia or deaths from pneumonia. In conclusion, the authors state:
“[T]here is no evidence that vaccinating health care workers prevents influenza in elderly residents in long-term care facilities.
Ditto for children. A large-scale, systematic review of 51 studies, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviewsii in 2006, found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo in preventing influenza in children under two. The studies involved 260,000 children, age 6 to 23 months.
Two years, later, in 2008, another Cochrane reviewiii again concluded “little evidence is available” that the flu vaccine is effective in preventing influenza in children under the age of two.
As for the general adult population, Cochrane published the following bombshell conclusioniv last year:
“Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.
WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines.
The review demonstrated that reliable scientific evidence confirming that influenza vaccines are effective is thin and there is plenty of reason to suspect that there may be a manipulation of conclusions when the studies are funded by drug companies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.”