Fall Rush To Vaccinate Pregnant Women Backed By Propaganda, Not Science
By Dave Mihalovic
The rush to vaccinate pregnant mothers is on and from commercials, to TV shows and bill boards, you can’t miss the propaganda–it’s everywhere. Not only does the CDC admit flu shots don’t work, but there is absolutely no evidence that any influenza vaccine prevents the flu for pregnant women (or others) any more than a placebo.
In 2014, the CDC published a report documenting an influenza outbreak which occurred among fully vaccinated populations.
Media outlets such as the Huffington Post, Seattle Times and ABC News then began to report based on the CDC’s own admissions, that flu shot formulations were ineffective to prevent the actual illness.
An overwhelming majority of pregnant women who visit the doctor’s office are now refusing the flu vaccine over fears it will harm their fetus and their fears are now scientifically justified. More than 90% of all expecting mothers will now say no to the flu vaccine due to fear of miscarriage and delivery of toxic byproducts to their unborn child.
In 2011, Dr. Alessandro Bertoucci who analyzed the practices of 256 physicians treating more than 600,000 patients, reported that a staggering 91% of pregnant women are declining influenza vaccines due to fears of miscarriage and suspected toxins in the vaccine itself.
A study published in the Human and Experimental Toxicology journal found a direct statistical correlation between higher vaccine doses and infant mortality rates. It showed a 4250% increase in fetal deaths according to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data when comparing three consecutive influenza seasons. It was a confirmation that many anti-vaccine advocates have long awaited and further establishes and adds to preliminary evidence that vaccinations are toxic poisons having no place in the human body.
The study, Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?, was conducted by Gary S. Goldman and Neil Z. Miller who has been studying the dangers of vaccines for 25 years.
Not a single scientist, immunologist, infectious disease specialist or medical doctor has ever been able to establish a scientific foundation for the vaccination of infants (less than one year old).
The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic
well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year–the most in the world–yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Australia and Canada are a close 2nd and 3rd respectively with 24 vaccine doses.
165 Studies Have Found Thimerosal to be Harmful
While the CDC states on its website that “low doses of thimerosal in vaccines do not cause harm, and are only associated with minor local injection site reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site,” the journal BioMed Research International now provides direct evidence that the CDC’s safety assurances about the mercury-containing preservative are not fact-based, according to the article’s lead author, Brian Hooker, PhD.
What most people do not realize is although the FDA gave a two year deadline to remove thimerosal from vaccines after the deadly neurotoxin was banned in 1999, they continue to appear in vaccine formulations to this day.
Factually, Thimerosal is a mercury-containing compound that is a known human carcinogen, mutagen, teratogen and immune-system disruptor at levels below 1 part-per-million, and a compound to which some humans can have an anaphylactic shock reaction. It is also a recognized reproductive and fetal toxin with no established toxicologically safe level of exposure for humans.
There are dozens of scientific inquiries and studies on the adverse effects of thimerosal, including gastrointestinal abnormalities and immune system irregularities.
The BioMed Research International paper opens by citing over 165 studies that have found Thimerosal to be harmful, including 16 studies that had reported outcomes in human infants and children of death, acrodynia, poisoning, allergic reaction, malformations, auto-immune reaction, Well’s syndrome, developmental delay and neurodevelopmental disorders including tics, speech delay, language delay, ADHD and autism. These findings by multiple independent research groups over the past 75+ years have consistently found thimerosal to be harmful. “Substantial scientific evidence exists and has existed for many years that the vaccine ingredient thimerosal is a developmental neurotoxin” says George Lucier, former Associate Director of the National Toxicology Program.
Studies showing harm from thimerosal sharply contradict published outcomes of six CDC coauthored and sponsored papers the very studies that CDC relies upon to declare that thimerosal is “safe” for use in infant and maternal vaccines. Dr. Hooker, biochemist and vaccine industry watchdog, said of the six CDC studies, “Each of these papers is fatally flawed from a statistics standpoint and several of the papers represent issues of scientific malfeasance. For example, important data showing a relationship between thimerosal exposure and autism are withheld from three of the publications (Price et al. 2010, Verstraeten et al. 2003 and Madsen et al. 2003). This type of cherry-picking of data by the CDC in order to change the results of important research studies to support flawed and dangerous vaccination policies should not be tolerated.”
More researchers are finding equally finding distrust in that their colleagues have gathered data carelessly, have used inappropriate analytic and statistical techniques, have reported their results inaccurately, and have treated the work of other researchers with disrespect.
While further research and investigations will be necessary to gain a broader perspective and understanding of diverse entry points for novel flu strains, it is becoming more evident that vaccinations themselves may be responsible for infecting populations on a large scale and how their introduction through new forms of technology may actually increase their transmission rates worldwide.