Jabbed

Humans are injected with more influenza vaccines than all other shots combined. In that sense, the flu jab represents the Unholy Trinity’s greatest success. So far, it’s the only vaccine that adults routinely submit to. FiercePharma, a pro-pharma, pro-business website, stated in 2012, “A big part of the growth in vaccine sales has been in the adult influenza market with the big focus on flu prevention and an acceptance of adult vaccines.”²

The industry uses the flu vaccine in adults and children down to the age of six months just as it uses the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine: both serve as tools to modify thought and behaviors. Year after year, the CDC recycles the lies about the numbers of people killed by the flu and then follows up with its unsupported claim that the flu vaccine is “the first and best way to protect against influenza.”³

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently noted that only 56% of people who received the jab were protected from influenza, on the very low end of effectiveness spectrum. It was particularly ineffective among the elderly, one of the key target groups. The results led CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden to lament, “We simply need a better vaccine against influenza, one that works better and lasts longer.”6

The package insert for FLUVIRIN^®, manufactured by Novartis Vaccines, discusses the efficacy under the “Limitations of Vaccine Effectiveness” heading. The total information provided in this section is: “Vaccination with FLUVIRIN^® may not protect all individuals.”⁷

That’s an understatement. Under the “Indications and Usage” heading, it reads: “FLUVIRIN^® is not indicated for children less than 4 years of age because there is evidence of diminished immune response in this age group. . . .” In other words, even biased researchers failed to create the impression that the shot actually provides some level of benefit in young children.

The flu vaccine got a lot of bad press in the 2017–2018 flu vaccine season because the viruses in the vaccine did not match the viruses in the environment, making it virtually worthless. However, the news reporting that season perpetuated the illusion that a bad year is an anomaly and that the vaccine normally protects about 60% of vaccinees from getting the flu. A closer look at the numbers reveals the truth.

GlaxoSmithKline manufactures the Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine. Keeping in mind that GSK profits from the sale of vaccines, the Fluarix package insert should be read with a grain a salt, but it should still be read. According to the insert, “. . . antibody titer post-vaccination with inactivated influenza virus vaccines have not been correlated with protection from influenza illness but the . . . antibody titers have been used as a measure of vaccine activity.” The insert further states that antibody titers above a specific count “have been associated with protection from influenza illness in up to 50% of subjects.”⁸

As worthless as standard flu vaccines tend to be, they look like superstars compared to the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) marketed as FluMist. In June 2016, the CDC and the AAP announced that pediatricians should trash their FluMist supply because it is only 3% effective.¹⁰^, ¹¹ That doesn’t mean that the FluMist prevents 3% of recipients from getting the flu. It means that the FluMist prevents somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.1% of people or 1 in 1,000 people from getting the flu. So the “effective” flu vaccine is about 98% worthless, while the ineffective FluMist is 99.9% worthless.

Speaking of worthless, in February 2018, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 12-2 to bring back a reformulated Flumist vaccine as “an option for influenza vaccination for persons for whom it is appropriate” in the 2018–2019 influenza season. Lisa Grohskoph, MD, of the CDC admitted that the new formulation’s vaccine efficacy is unknown and will remain unknown until The Herd tests it out. David Stephens, MD, one of two people who voted against the recommendation, said, “I’m really concerned about what message this [approval] sends.”¹²

Flu vaccines are safe. Serious problems from the flu vaccine are very rare. The most common side effect that a person is likely to experience is either soreness where the injection was given, or runny nose in the case of nasal spray. These side effects are generally mild and usually go away after a day or two.14

The FLUARIX package insert tells a different story. Sixteen percent of adult test subjects experienced muscle aches, headache, and fatigue up to seven days after receiving the jab.¹⁵

• In children aged 3 through 17 years, the injection site adverse reactions were pain (44%), redness (23%), and swelling (19%). . . .

• In children aged 3 through 5 years, the most common (≥10%) systemic adverse events were drowsiness (17%), irritability (17%), and loss of appetite (16%); in children aged 6 through 17 years, the most common systemic adverse events were fatigue (20%), muscle aches (18%), headache (16%), arthralgia (10%), and gastrointestinal symptoms (10%). . . .¹⁶

Arthralgia is defined as pain in joints, and gastrointestinal symptoms are defined as “nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and/or abdominal pain.” The CDC shares the following information about the flu and typical flu symptoms:

Influenza (also known as the flu) is a contagious respiratory illness caused by flu viruses. It can cause mild to severe illness, and at times can lead to death. . . . People who have the flu often feel some or all of these symptoms:

Fever* or feeling feverish/chills

Cough

Sore throat

Runny or stuffy nose

Muscle or body aches

Headaches

Fatigue (tiredness)

Some people may have vomiting and diarrhea, though this is more common in children than adults.

It’s important to note that not everyone with flu will have a fever.17

In summary, the flu vaccine cannot (CDC’s word) give vaccinees the flu, but it can and does give up to 20% of flu vaccine victims one or more symptoms of the flu. Not to belabor the obvious, but the CDC’s attempt to minimize the adverse effects of the vaccine is a blatant misrepresentation of fact, and medical professionals routinely pass such nonsense on to their patients by telling recently vaccinated individuals that they were going to get sick anyway and that the vaccine did not cause their illness.¹⁸

So, if the flu vaccine sickens up to 20% of the population, how did Novartis get away with its claim that the FLUARIX vaccine reduced the incidence of influenza-like illness in its efficacy trial? First they “monitored for influenza-like illnesses (ILI) starting 2 weeks post-vaccination and lasting for approximately 7 months.” That statement is informative, but it’s also a lie. The monitoring began the moment the vaccines were administered. The side effects mentioned above were the result of the monitoring in the 7-day period following vaccination. Those data were intentionally excluded from the efficacy trial because they would have demonstrated that for every two people the vaccine helps, there are up to 20 others who get a flu-like illness from the vaccine. In short, the flu jab is 10 times more likely to harm than to help the public. That ratio is even more damning among young children and the elderly, who derive even less benefit and even more harm from the ubiquitous jab.

These and other disturbing facts are not unknown to high-ranking officials, as illustrated by the speech Congressman Bill Posey made on the floor of the House in 2013:

In 2000 there was near universal agreement that mercury should be removed as a preservative for vaccines. Yet, today, nearly half of all annual flu vaccines, which are recommended for children and pregnant women, still contain mercury as a preservative—not simply trace amounts of mercury. It’s 2013! Why are we still injecting ethylmercury into babies and pregnant women?¹⁹

I would not take the flu vaccine. My wife does not take the flu vaccine. No one should take the flu vaccine. And in fact when I was head of CDC, I wanted to make that as a public statement and I refused to say that you should take the flu vaccine. That’s why I’m now professor at Harvard.

Turner clarified Langmuir’s statement by adding, “He got fired for that. That was what he told me.”²¹

Russell Blaylock, MD, an expert in brain damage caused by vaccinologists, said, “I cannot think of anything more insane than vaccinating pregnant women.”²²

Clearly, people of influence realize that the flu vaccine is a hoax. Medical journals routinely publish papers exposing various aspects of the hoax. Following are a few of many examples:

The Lancet, 2005:

We recorded no convincing evidence that vaccines can reduce mortality, admissions, serious complications, and community transmission of influenza.²³

Allergy and Asthma Proceedings, 2012:

Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine did not provide any protection against hospitalization in pediatric subjects, especially children with asthma. On the contrary, we found a threefold increased risk of hospitalization in subjects who did get trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine.²⁴

PLOS Medicine, 2010:

We report findings from four epidemiologic studies in Canada showing that prior receipt of 2008-09 trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine was associated with increased risk of medically attended pandemic H1N1 illness during the spring-summer 2009.²⁵

Journal of Virology, 2011:

. . . long-term annual vaccination using inactivated vaccines may hamper the induction of cross-reactive CD8+ T cell responses by natural infections and thus may affect the induction of heterosubtypic immunity. This may render young children who have not previously been infected with an influenza virus more susceptible to infection with a pandemic influenza virus of a novel subtype.26

Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2012:

We randomized 115 children to trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or placebo. Over the following 9 months, TIV recipients had an increased risk of virologically-confirmed non-influenza infections (relative risk: 4.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.31-14.8). Being protected against influenza, TIV recipients may lack temporary non-specific immunity that protected against other respiratory viruses. . . . We identified a statistically significant increased risk of non-influenza respiratory virus infection among trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine recipients, including significant increases in the risk of rhinovirus and coxsackie/echovirus infection.²⁷

Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2013:

In vaccinated subjects with no evidence of prior season vaccination, significant protection (62%) against community-acquired influenza was demonstrated. Substantially lower effectiveness was noted among subjects who were vaccinated in both the current and prior season.²⁸

British Medical Journal, 2009:

The disparity in effectiveness between the high profile of influenza vaccines and antivirals and the low profile of physical interventions is striking. Public health recommendations are almost completely based on the use of vaccines and antivirals despite a lack of strong evidence.²⁹

Archives of Internal Medicine, 2005:

We could not correlate increasing vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group. We conclude that observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit.³⁰

Vaccine, 2009:

Cohort studies have consistently reported that vaccination reduces all-cause winter mortality by about 50%—an astonishing claim given that only about 5% of all winter deaths are attributable to influenza. This vaccine efficacy overestimation has now been attributed to profound confounding frailty selection bias.³¹

According to the vaccine researcher and author Neil Miller, the Vaccine paper found that “During the 1980s and 1990s, the percentage of seniors who received influenza vaccines increased fourfold yet CDC epidemiologists found that national influenza-related death rates actually increased.”³²

International Journal of Family Medicine, 2012:

The studies aiming to prove the widespread belief that staff vaccination has a substantial effect on patient morbidity and mortality are heavily flawed. No reliable evidence shows that healthcare worker vaccination has noteworthy advantage to their patients—not in reducing patient morbidity or mortality, not in increasing patient vaccination, and not in decreasing [healthcare worker] work absenteeism.33

British Medical Journal, 2009:

Most of our studies (70%) were of poor quality with overoptimistic conclusions—that is, not supported by the data presented. Those sponsored by industry had greater visibility as they were more likely to be published by high impact factor journals and were likely to be given higher prominence by the international scientific and lay media, despite their apparent equivalent methodological quality and size compared with studies with other funders.³⁴

JAMA Internal Medicine, 2013:

The evidence that influenza represents a threat of public health proportions is questionable, the evidence that influenza vaccines reduce important patient-centered outcomes such as mortality is unreliable, the assumption that past influenza vaccine safety is predictive of future experience is unsound, and nonpharmaceutical interventions to manage influenza-like illness exist.³⁵

British Medical Journal, 2013:

Closer inspection of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality and do not substantiate officials’ claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.³⁶

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013:

Vaccinating healthcare workers who care for those aged 60 or over in long-term care institutions showed no effect on laboratory-proven influenza or complications (lower respiratory tract infections, hospitalization or death due to lower respiratory tract illness) in those aged 60 or over resident in long-term care institutions.³⁷

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2014:

The real impact of biases could not be determined for about 70% of the included [influenza vaccine] studies. . . . Just under 10% had good methodological quality.³⁸

Public Library of Science, 2017:

More realistic recalibration based on actual patient data instead shows that at least 6000 to 32,000 hospital workers would need to be vaccinated [with influenza vaccines] before a single patient death could potentially be averted. . . . The impression that unvaccinated HCWs [health care workers] place their patients at great influenza peril is exaggerated.39

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2018:

The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and ILI with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly.⁴⁰

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America, 2018:

Self-reported vaccination for the current season was associated with a trend (P < 0.10) toward higher viral shedding in fine-aerosol samples; vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models (P < 0.01). In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons.⁴¹

But wait. There’s more. The FLUARIX package insert provides an additional list of adverse events that occurred in vaccine victims. These include: lymphadenopathy, tachycardia, vertigo, conjunctivitis, eye irritation, eye pain, eye redness, eye swelling, eyelid swelling, abdominal pain or discomfort, swelling of the mouth, throat, and/or tongue, asthenia, chest pain, feeling hot, injection site mass, injection site reaction, injection site warmth, body aches, anaphylactic reaction including shock, anaphylactoid reaction, hypersensitivity, serum sickness, injection site abscess, injection site cellulitis, pharyngitis, rhinitis, tonsillitis, convulsion, encephalomyelitis, facial palsy, facial paresis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, hypoesthesia, myelitis, neuritis, neuropathy, paresthesia, syncope, asthma, bronchospasm, dyspnea, respiratory distress, stridor, angioedema, erythema, erythema multiforme, facial swelling, pruritus, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, sweating, urticarial, Henoch-Schönlein purpura, and vasculitis.⁴²

The blanket recommendation that pregnant women receive the flu shot was a slap in the face to the House Committee on Government Reform’s 2003 Mercury in Medicine Report, which documented the problems associated with the use of thimerosal in vaccines. According to the report,

The research is explicit that fetal brains are more sensitive than the adult brains to the adverse effects of methylmercury, which include:

• Severe brain damage

• Delayed achievement of developmental milestones

• Neurological abnormalities such as brisk tendon reflexes

• Widespread damage to all areas of the fetal brain, as opposed to focal lesions seen in adult tissue

• Microcephaly

• Purkinje [neuron] cells failed to migrate to the cerebellum

• Inhibition of both cell division and migration, affecting the most (extraneous return)

• basic process in brain development.⁴⁶

The Mercury in Medicine Report was far from the first report to document the risks of thimerosal to pregnant mothers and their developing fetuses. The FDA prepared an internal Point Paper in 1998 for the Maternal Immunization Working Group. The paper advised against the use of multidose vials to avoid “the potential neurotoxic effect of mercury especially when considering cumulative doses of this component in early infancy. . . .”⁴⁷ FDA officials addressed those concerns in 1999 in the HHS’s National Vaccine Advisory Committee, where Dr. Bernard Schwetz, the Director of the FDA’s toxicology center, said,

. . . the sensitivity of the fetus versus the neonate is very important, and for some of you who have forgotten about the sensitive windows during fetal development, the nervous system develops post-natally. So it isn’t unreasonable to expect that there would be particular windows of sensitivity. So it isn’t the matter of averaging the dose over the whole neonatal period—it’s what’s the week or what’s the day or what’s the series of hours that represent a particular event in the development of the nervous system when this whole thing might be dangerous. There may be weeks surrounding that when there isn’t a major problem. We don’t have that information.48

In 2000, a “leading researcher” made the following statement to the House Committee on Government Reform:

There’s no question that mercury does not belong in vaccines. There are other compounds that could be used as preservatives. And everything we know about childhood susceptibility, neurotoxicity of mercury at the fetus and at the infant level, points out that we should not have these fetuses and infants exposed to mercury. There’s no need of it in the vaccines.⁴⁹

In July 2001, the AAP published an internal study that concluded, “Mercury in all of its forms is toxic to the fetus and children and efforts should be made to reduce exposure to the extent possible to pregnant women and children as well as the general population.”⁵⁰

As previously cited, one of the adverse effects of mercury on “fetal brains” described in The Mercury In Medicine Report is microcephaly, a disorder vaccine elites blame on the mosquito-borne Zika virus. The same people who parrot the phrase “correlation does not equal causation” to dismiss the link between vaccines and autism or vaccines and infant deaths misdiagnosed as SIDS are now convinced that the Zika virus causes microcephaly based on a virtual lack of correlation.⁵¹

Mercury, however, is not the exclusive vaccine-related cause of microcephaly. The Institute of Medicine published a report in 1991 titled “Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines.”⁵² The report details numerous adverse effects from the pertussis and rubella vaccines that occur pre-, peri-, or postnatally, including microcephaly.⁵³ According to Indian researcher Jagannath Chatterjee, in recent years Brazilian children have experienced high rates of birth defects due to “rampant malnutrition” combined with “pesticide and herbicide poisoning” from Monsanto and other global poisoners.⁵⁴

In October 2014, ten months before microcephaly hit the news, the Brazilian health authorities increased the risk of microcephaly by recommending up to three doses of the TDap (tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis vaccine) vaccine during pregnancy, the same vaccine the ACIP has recommended for pregnant American women since 2011.⁵⁵^, ⁵⁶^, ⁵⁷ It is interesting to note that since that time Brazilian authorities have apparently done their best to erase any record of the original document, but it can still be found using historical web search engines.58 When the supply of TDap ran low in Brazil, the vaccinators switched over to the “highly reactive DTP vaccine.” The Latin American country also exposes pregnant women to thimerosal with its aggressive flu vaccine campaign.⁵⁹

In addition, some pregnant women receive the MMR vaccine. Again, it is no surprise that pregnant women who were jabbed with jabs known to cause microcephaly gave birth to babies with microcephaly. It is also no surprise that the World Health Organization would blame the benign Zika virus, not the vaccines, for the birth defects.⁶⁰ Blaming vaccines would greatly reduce the profits WHO makes from its global vaccination program. Blaming the Zika virus creates yet another source of vaccine revenue with a Zika vaccine. The CDC capitalized on the likely false connection between the Zika virus and microcephaly when its 2016 prediction of the imminent Zika apocalypse resulted in a $1.8 billion Zika award from the US Congress.⁶¹ Part of that money was used to spray US citizens in a few select locations with fear and neurotoxic poisons.⁶² Since that time, the CDC’s prediction of the Zika apocalypse has been largely forgotten because it failed to materialize. Regardless, as of 2018 the US government continues to support the development of a Zika vaccine, the irony of which cannot be overstated: the Zika vaccine will owe its existence to microcephaly, a condition that is likely a vaccine-induced disorder.⁶³

It’s important to remember that microcephaly is only one disaster attributed to the vaccination of pregnant women. Dr. Stephanie Seneff, MIT researcher, has written extensively on aluminum toxicity in the brain. The TDap vaccine contains aluminum. Seneff also documented the synergistic toxicity that occurs when aluminum is combined with glyphosate, the “active ingredient” in Monsanto’s Roundup. Virtually all people have glyphosate in their bodies. Women living in the agrochemical-intensive regions of Brazil undoubtedly carry high levels of glyphosate. Glyphosate is a powerful metal chelator. Chelators bind to metals and minerals and then release them in acidic environments. Blood becomes more acidic before returning to the lungs. The pineal gland, positioned outside the blood-brain barrier, is near the end of the circulation system. “So,” stated Seneff in a 2016 interview, “it’s the perfect opportunity for glyphosate to carry aluminum that’s in the vaccine to the pineal gland and ruin the pineal gland,” resulting in sleep disorders, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, as well as other neurological diseases.⁶⁴

It’s also important to remember that the damage caused by aluminum in vaccines extends beyond the brain. Dr. Suzanne Humphries, a nephrologist, eventually left her lucrative practice due to her employer’s refusal to stop injuring her kidney-impaired patients with required vaccinations. Humphries stated,

We’re very careful as nephrologists when treating babies because the kidney functions of babies isn’t the same as adults—it’s vastly reduced. But when it comes to vaccines, this reduced kidney function in infants is always left out of the discussion.65

Christopher Exley, a professor with the UK’s Keele University, wrote a chapter in the 2008 book Molecular and Supramolecular Bioinorganic Chemistry. According to Exley, “Human diseases which have been linked to exposure to aluminium” include: Alzheimer’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, Motor Neuron Disease (MND/ALS), Dialysis Encephalopathy, Multiple Sclerosis, Epilepsy, Osteomalacia, Osteoporosis, Arthritis, Anemia, Calciphylaxis, Asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Vaccine-related Macrophagic Myofasciitis, Vaccine-related Cutaneous Lymphoid Hyperplasia, Vaccine-related Hypersensitivity to Aluminum, Immunotherapy-related Hypersensitivity, Cancer, Diabetes, Sarcoidosis, Down’s Syndrome, Muscular Dystrophy, Cholestasis, Obesity, Hyperactivity, Autism, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Gulf War Illness, Aluminosis, Crohn’s Disease, Vascular Disease/Stroke.⁶⁶ The researcher concludes,

There is no evidence that human physiology is prepared for the challenge of biologically-reactive aluminium and it is naïve to assume that aluminium is a benign presence in the body. Aluminium is contributing to human disease and will continue to do so if its accumulation in the body is not checked or reversed.⁶⁷

Some ten years later, Exley provided hard evidence that aluminum is indeed contributing to human disease when he and his fellow researchers documented record levels of aluminum in the brains of deceased teenagers with autism. The Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology published their paper titled “Aluminium in brain tissue in autism.” Their conclusion reads as follows:

We have made the first measurements of aluminium in brain tissue in ASD and we have shown that the brain aluminium content is extraordinarily high. We have identified aluminium in brain tissue as both extracellular and intracellular with the latter involving both neurones and non-neuronal cells. The presence of aluminium in inflammatory cells in the meninges, vasculature, grey and white matter is a standout observation and could implicate aluminium in the aetiology of ASD.⁶⁸

I was not prepared for the vitriol, largely anonymous, which accompanied our publication. I have been elucidating upon the potential dangers of the aluminium age for 34 years now but I have never before had my life threatened openly. I can only assume that our research has weighed very heavily on the toes of those who will not counter the possibility that not all vaccines are 100% safe. . . .

Our research on aluminium and autism took two years of extremely hard and dedicated work to complete. While the response to it through social media in the main has been gratifying, the vitriol of some individuals has been difficult, as have the decisions by mainstream media and the scientific establishment to ignore the findings. The silence in this case has not been ‘golden’ it has been deafening and it has only served to reinforce that which is of burgeoning realisation that we are already suffering the consequences of the tyranny of the aluminium age.69

Returning to the topic of thimerosal, 2003 was about the year when the last of the remaining stocks of thimerosal-containing vaccines were injected into American children. (No thimerosal-containing vaccines were ever recalled in spite of Representative Dan Burton’s repeated requests for a recall.⁷⁰) Nearly 50% of flu vaccines, however, still contained thimerosal; and the CDC refused, as it has always done, to state a preference for thimerosal-free flu vaccines.⁷¹

From that moment onward, fully vaccinated 5-year-old children would receive 53% of the mercury children received during the peak years of the thimerosal generation,⁷² and medical professionals advised pregnant women to get the flu shot, regardless of the gestational age of their unborn babies, with nary a word of warning about the risks of mercury. This, in spite of the fact that Eli Lilly, a manufacturer of thimerosal, included the following information in its own 1999 Material Safety Data Sheet for Thimerosal:

Primary Physical and Health Hazards: Skin Permeable. Toxic. Mutagen. Irritant (eyes). Allergen. Nervous System and Reproductive Effects.

Caution Statement: Thimerosal may enter the body through the skin, is toxic, alters genetic material, may be irritating to the eyes, and causes allergic reactions. Effects of exposure may include numbness of extremities, fetal changes, decreased offspring survival, and lung tissue changes . . . .

Effects of Overexposure: . . . Thimerosal contains mercury. Mercury poisoning may occur and topical hypersensitivity reactions may be seen. . . . Exposure to mercury in utero and in children may cause mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe motor coordination impairment. . . .

Reproduction: Thimerosal—Decreased offspring survival.

Mercury—Changes in sperm production, decreased offspring survival, and offspring nervous system effects including mild to severe mental retardation and motor coordination impairment. . . .

Mutagenicity: Thimerosal - Mutagenic in mammalian cells.73

Adding to the insanity, with the exception of the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine, the ACIP advises medical professionals to vaccinate preterm infants on the same schedule as babies born full term. Furthermore, “The full recommended dose of each vaccine should be used. Divided or reduced doses are not recommended.”⁷⁴

It’s important to note that the FDA categorizes both influenza and Tdap vaccines as Pregnancy Category B because in the words of Barbara Loe Fisher, President of the National Vaccine Information Center, “it is not known whether the vaccines are genotoxic and can cause fetal harm or can affect maternal fertility and reproduction. . . .” Therefore, “. . . administering influenza and Tdap vaccines to pregnant women is an off-label use of these vaccines.”⁷⁵

As demonstrated by the aforementioned evidence, scientists have long known that vaccinating pregnant women results in severe fetal harm. For government regulators to claim otherwise is a crime against humanity.

After acknowledging the risks associated with the Fluzone vaccine, the manufacturer provides the following warning: “Fluzone should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.”⁷⁶ If doctors heeded that one tidbit of sane advice in a world of insane vaccine indoctrination, no pregnant woman—or any other person for that matter—would ever be jabbed with another flu shot.

On October 1, 2001, the Institute of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review Committee released a report titled “Thimerosal Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes.” The “independent” body downplayed the risk of thimerosal but still recommended “the use of thimerosal-free DTaP, HIB, hepatitis B vaccines in the United States, despite the fact that there might be remaining supplies of thimerosal-containing vaccine available.” It further recommended “that full consideration be given by appropriate professional societies and government agencies to removing thimerosal from vaccines administered to infants, or pregnant women in the United States.”⁷⁷

Two years after the ACIP recommended the flu jab for all pregnant women, Researchers David Ayoub and Edward Yazbak published a paper titled “Influenza vaccination during pregnancy: a critical assessment of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).” Among other things, they concluded:

The [CDC] recommendation of influenza vaccination during pregnancy is not supported by citations in its own policy paper or in current medical literature. Considering the potential risks of maternal and fetal mercury exposure, the administration of thimerosal during pregnancy is both unjustified and unwise.78

In 2014, Dr. William Thompson, the CDC whistleblower, confided in a recorded telephone conversation with Dr. Brian Hooker his thoughts on why “they” still give mercury to pregnant women. “My theory on that is that the drug companies think that if it is in at least that one vaccine then no one could argue that it should be out of other vaccines outside of the US.” Almost as an afterthought, the CDC scientist added, “So I don’t know why they still give it [the flu shot] to pregnant women, like that’s the last person I would give mercury to.”⁷⁹

Thompson’s statement is of special interest because it destroys the notion that the CDC and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices are the gatekeepers of the US vaccine program. If it is true as Thompson suggests that “the drug companies” keep thimerosal on the US market just to assuage the fears of concerned people on foreign soil, that would confirm the findings detailed in the “Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making” report that was submitted to the US House of Representatives in 2000: the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunizations Practices (ACIP) are nothing more than front organizations for the pharmaceutical industry. Kelly Brogan, MD, reveals her disdain for the ACIP with the following statement:

This group of “thought leaders” is charged with the task of determining what vaccines will be pushed upon you during your doctor’s check-ups and wellness visits. It consists of heads of pharmaceutical companies such as Novartis and Sanofi Pasteur, and is a prime example of the enmeshment between the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and industry.⁸⁰

Referring specifically to the policy and practice of vaccinating pregnant women, Brogan wrote, “. . .the guiding authorities you have been led to believe are acting in your best interest are guilty of some pretty heinous crimes of abuse and neglect, and never more so than in the pregnant population.”⁸¹

As if to prove Brogan’s point, Vaccine published a CDC study in 2017 titled “Association of spontaneous abortion with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine containing H1N1pdm09 in 2010–11 and 2011–12.” Analyzing data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, the researchers found that the risk of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) increased by 670% in women who had received the pH1N1-containing vaccine for two consecutive seasons, demonstrating once again that vaccine risk increases with vaccine exposure.⁸²

CDC and its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) are aware of these data, which were first presented to ACIP at a public meeting in June 2015. At this time, CDC and ACIP have not changed the recommendation for influenza vaccination of pregnant women. It is recommended that pregnant women get a flu vaccine during any trimester of their pregnancy because flu poses a danger to pregnant women and a flu vaccine can prevent influenza in pregnant women.83

In a relatively enlightened era where pregnant women know they should avoid all alcohol, it is more than evident that vaccinating pregnant women with any vaccine, let alone thimerosal-containing vaccines and aluminum-containing vaccines, is a throwback to a former era when doctors delivered babies with the blood of cadavers still on their hands.

Speaking of blood on their hands, vaccinating preterm infants, especially low-weight preterm infants, surely ranks as one of the most senseless and most egregious crimes committed against some of the most vulnerable people on the planet. Neal Halsey, “one of the architects of US vaccine policy,”⁸⁴ delivered a presentation in an FDA-sponsored workshop in August 1999 in which he reviewed multiple issues stemming from the vaccination of babies—risks that increase in preterm infants. The presentation came shortly after the FDA had finally done the math and figured out that the smallest infants receive 240 times the EPA’s daily allowance for mercury.⁸⁵ Halsey was reportedly seen crying when he first learned how much mercury children were receiving in the vaccines he believed to be “safe and effective.”⁸⁶

In the ensuing years, researchers have repeatedly documented the dangers of vaccinating preterm infants. Following are a few of their findings:

Journal of Pediatrics, 2007:

Our study revealed that some vaccines, including DTaP, even if administered alone, were associated with cardiorespiratory adverse events and abnormal CRP values in premature infants in the NICU. However, the incidence of these events was higher following simultaneous administration of multiple vaccines compared with administration of a single vaccine.⁸⁷

Vaccine, 2007:

Hexavalent (DTaP, inactivated polio, Hib and hepatitis B) immunization can cause apnea/bradycardia/desaturation in premature babies with chronic disease.⁸⁸

According to vaccine researcher Neil Miller, the scientists involved in this study found that “[n]early 22% of vaccinated premature newborns with chronic disease had adverse reactions.”89 Miller also commented on a 2008 paper published in The Journal of Pediatrics on the

. . . recurrence of cardiorespiratory events following repeat DTaP-based combined immunization in very low birth weight premature infants, saying, “More than half (51.5) of all vaccinated premature infants had an adverse cardiorespiratory reaction after their first vaccination, and 18% of these had a recurrence after their second vaccination.”⁹⁰^, ⁹¹

Two other teams of researchers have also documented “adverse cardiorespiratory events” in low birth weight babies.⁹²^, ⁹³ As common sense would suggest, “Adverse reactions were more common in younger and lower weight infants.”⁹⁴

A 2015 paper published in JAMA Pediatrics added to the overwhelming weight of evidence against jabbing preterm infants: “Immunization of extremely low-birth-weight (ELBW) infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is associated with adverse events, including fever and apnea or bradycardia, in the immediate postimmunization period.” The six authors follow up with a jaw-dropping statement: “These adverse events present a diagnostic dilemma for physicians, leading to the potential for immunization delay and sepsis evaluations.”⁹⁵

Rest assured that no vaccine-informed parent would share this “diagnostic dilemma” with the doctors they trust to “First do no harm.”

The authors then settle the issue for conflicted doctors with the following conclusion:

All ELBW infants in the NICU had an increased incidence of sepsis evaluations and increased respiratory support and intubation after routine immunization. Our findings provide no evidence to suggest that physicians should not use combination vaccines in ELBW infants. Further studies are needed to determine whether timing or spacing of immunization administrations confers risk for the developing adverse events and whether a prior history of sepsis confers risk for an altered immune response in ELBW infants [emphasis added].⁹⁶

The conclusion drawn by these researchers, published in what is considered to be one of most reputable medical journals, demonstrates in stunning clarity the power of the vaccine paradigm over the hearts and minds of medical professionals.

Michelle Rowton, a whistleblower nurse, grew tired of working with such people in Neonatal Intensive Care Units. As the founding member of Nurses Against Mandatory Vaccines,⁹⁷ Rowton routinely speaks out against the cavalier manner in which professionals prepare for the expected adverse events following vaccination of preterm infants:

I’ve sat in a room with our on-call staff of physicians and practitioners [when they say] “Oh wow, this is so embarrassing this 25 weeker never actually required a breathing tube and going on the vent after he was born, he was so strong. But we gave him his two month vaccinations and he got intubated last night ha ha, oops how embarrassing.” The step-down units are calling the NICU’s and saying “Hey, we’re going to go ahead and give these four babies their two month shots today; make sure you have beds ready because we all know they’re going to have increased breathing difficulties, feeding and digestion difficulties, apnea, and bradycardia.”98

Make no mistake; the vaccination of pregnant women, infants, and preterm babies is fundamentally misogynistic. It’s a full-on assault against a mother’s instincts to protect her children against harm. The media’s portrayal of vaccine-informed mothers as hysterical women is also misogynistic, demeaning, and blatantly sexist. In a speech delivered on the grounds of the California State Capitol in April 2015, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. blasted those who abuse vaccine-informed mothers:

This movement that calls you anti-vax is the most misogynistic movement that I have seen in my lifetime. It is a movement that is anti-mother and it is anti-woman. The names that I hear coming out of people’s mouths about hysterics, and “refrigerator moms,” and all of this in our major newspapers like the New York Times, is extraordinary. And I want to say something about these women before I stand down. I was raised around extraordinary women. My grandmother, Rose Kennedy, was mother of three senators, and the mother of a president. My aunt Eunice Shriver started the Special Olympics. But I have never met women like the ones that I have met in this movement. They are articulate. They’re eloquent. They’re pharmacists. They’re doctors. They’re lawyers. They have read the science. They know what the science says. And they can destroy any of these politicians if they were given the ability to debate.⁹⁹

Kennedy then shared in detail the difficulties faced by women and parents who are traumatized by a system that injured their children and further traumatized by the denial of injury from medical professionals and the hateful rhetoric from the press. He concludes,

. . . all of the barriers that are meant to protect our children: the government, the lawyers, the regulatory agency, and the press, the checks and balances in our democratic system that are supposed to stand between corporate power and our little children have been removed. There’s only one barrier left, and that’s the parents. We need to keep that in the equation.100

Standing in direct opposition to misogynistic professionals, Andrew Wakefield listened to the parents who believed their children were injured by the MMR vaccine. Since that time he has said countless times, “The parents were right.” Wakefield addresses parents and honors mothers in the introduction to his book Callous Disregard:

To the parents I would say, trust your instincts above all else. When considering how to vaccinate your children, read, get educated, and demand fully informed consent and answers to your questions. When you are stonewalled or those answers are not to your satisfaction, trust your instinct. I say this as someone who has studied and engaged in the science and who has become aware of the limitations of our knowledge and understanding of vaccine safety issues. Maternal instinct, in contrast, has been a steady hand upon the tiller of evolution; we would not be here without it.¹⁰¹

Finally, Dr. Frank B. Engley, the scientist who since the 1940s has researched, spoken out, and published papers on the toxicity of thimerosal, addressed a Chicago audience in 2008, shortly before he passed away at the age of 88. He, perhaps more than any other person alive at the time, had witnessed the failure of the medical establishment and government to protect the public from the rapacious pharmaceutical industry. His words stand as an eternal indictment against that system and an eternal testament to the power and wisdom of mothers:

May I say that industry and the pediatricians and the obstetricians and NIH and CDC and their ilk don’t realize what they’re up against: they’re up against the greatest force on this Earth, and that’s Mother love.¹⁰²

Chapter Seventeen

FLU JABS, PRETERM JABS,
AND OTHER ATROCITIES

Chapter Seventeen

FLU JABS, PRETERM JABS, AND OTHER ATROCITIES

FLU JABS, PRETERM JABS,
AND OTHER ATROCITIES