SOME ARE CALLING IT MEDICALLY UNETHICAL.
I AGREE.
PLEASE, PLEASE PASS THIS VITAL INFORMATION ON TO ANY PREGNANT WOMAN YOU CARE ABOUT!
NO ONE IS MAKING THIS PUBLIC EXCEPT CONCERNED PEOPLE LIKE SAYER JI, FROM WHOSE WEBSITE MUCH OF THIS HAS BEEN TAKEN, WITH MY DEEP GRATITUDE FOR THIS HEADS-UP.
IS YOUR UNBORN CHILD PART OF A VACCINE EXPERIMENT?
BIG PHARMA MAKES FETUSES GUINEA PIGS, WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM THE BIGGEST PUSHERS OF VACCINES ON THE PLANET, THE CDC.
THREE YEARS AGO, IN THE CDC'S OWN WORDS, THEY ISSUED THIS STATEMENT, A WARNING, ABOUT PREGNANT WOMEN BEING VACCINATED...PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:
In 2008, as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) the CDC stated the following, at the beginning of the MMWR report, titled Prevention of Pertussis, Tetanus, and Diphtheria Among Pregnant and Postpartum Women and Their Infants – Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP):
"Available evidence does NOT address the safety of Tdap for pregnant women, THEIR FETUSES, OR PREGNANCY OUTCOMES sufficiently.
Available data also do NOT indicate whether Tdap-induced transplacental maternal antibodies provide early protection against pertussis to infants or INTERFERE with an infant's IMMUNE RESPONSES to routinely administered pediatric vaccines."
These few sentences alone indicate that this vaccine is clearly unsafe for pregnant women and that there is no data to suggest that this vaccine can offer early protection.
The CDC further supports this perspective by providing the following information in the introduction of their report:
"The safety and efficacy of using Tdap in pregnant women has NOT been demonstrated, and Tdap is NOT recommended for use in pregnant women in any country.
NO EVIDENCE exists of excess morbidity or any fatality among pregnant women ascribed to pertussis.
[THAT IS, TO THE PREGNANT WOMAN WHO MIGHT CONTRACT WHOOPING COUGH.]
NO EVIDENCE EXISTS demonstrating whether Tdap in pregnant women HARMS THE FETUS or INCREASES RISK for ADVERSE pregnancy outcomes, [if] transplacental antibody induced by Tdap administered during pregnancy will protect infants against pertussis, or [if] Tdap-induced transplacental maternal antibody will have a NEGATIVE impact on an infant's protective immune response to later-administered routine pediatric DTaP or to conjugate vaccines containing tetanus toxoid or diphtheria toxoid."
"According to CDC paperwork, both the Tdap and the Dtap ARE vaccinations NOW offered to pregnant women during pregnancy, supposedly to protect their newborn infant from contracting pertussis (whooping cough) in the first few weeks of life.
However, despite recommending these vaccinations to ALL pregnant women, the CDC readily admits in their own documentation that neither vaccine has ever been tested during pregnancy for vaccine safety and that they have no idea whether the vaccines could harm a growing fetus.
THAT'S STILL NOT ALL THAT IS GIVEN WITH THOSE VACCINES!
"The ingredient list alone, delivered intramuscularly to defy all potential defenses, should send shivers down a pregnant woman's spine: filamentous hemagglutinin (FDA), pertactin, fimbriae, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (Tween 80), gluteraldehyde, 2-phenoxoyethanol, and aluminum passed through bovine (COW) serum.
A new study entitled 'Evaluation of the Association of Maternal Pertussis Vaccination With Obstetric Events and Birth Outcomes' contributes to these concerns, despite a generally dismissive and reassuring tone.
The CDC readily admits in their own documentation that neither vaccine has ever been tested during pregnancy for vaccine safety and that they have no idea whether the vaccines could harm a growing fetus.
In other words, by recommending these vaccinations to pregnant women, the CDC is fully prepared to use unborn babies as part of a massive vaccine experiment.
What is even more worrying is the fact that, in doing this, they are potentially risking the lives of millions of unborn babies.
With this information in mind, we need to ask ourselves how, three years later, AFTER THOSE INITIAL WARNINGS AND STATEMENTS THAT THE VACCINES WERE NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PREGNANT WOMEN, the Tdap, an untested, non-recommended vaccine can suddenly be recommended as not only safe but necessary by the CDC and offered to all pregnant women to protect their newborn baby from whooping cough.
This is especially worrying when you consider the fact that the vaccine manufacturers themselves cannot provide any evidence to suggest that this vaccine is either safe or effective.
Please see the vaccine information sheets for the two Tdap vaccinations that the CDC recommends for pregnant women, Adacel and Boostrix, both manufactured to protect against tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis (whooping cough).
Adacel, a Vaccine Manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur
In section 8 of the vaccines information leaflet titled Use in Specific Populations, Sanofi Pasteur stated:
"8.1
Pregnancy Category C
Animal reproduction studies have NOT been conducted with Adacel vaccine.
It is also NOT known whether Adacel vaccine can cause FETAL HARM when administered to a pregnant woman or CAN AFFECT REPRODUCTION CAPACITY. Adacel vaccine should be given to a pregnant woman ONLY IF clearly needed."
How can any vaccine, EVER, be "clearly needed" for use with pregnant women?
Next, we will look at the information sheet for Boostrix, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline to once again protect us against tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis.
Boostrix, a Vaccine Manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline
Once again, in section 8, titled Use in Specific Populations, the manufacturer has stated:
"8.1 Pregnancy
Pregnancy Category B
A developmental toxicity study has been performed in female rats at a dose approximately 40 times the human dose (on a mL/kg basis) and revealed no evidence of harm to the fetus due to BOOSTRIX. Animal fertility studies have not been conducted with BOOSTRIX. There are no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women. Because animal reproduction studies are not always predictive of human response, BOOSTRIX should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed."
GlaxoSmithKline ALSO stated that no adequate or well-controlled studies had been carried out on pregnant women.
In other words, they also had no idea if their vaccine would be safe during pregnancy or could cause harm to the growing fetus.
Despite having no proof that these vaccinations are safe to give pregnant women, in 2011, the CDC decided to do a complete turnaround. They decided to go ahead and recommend the vaccination anyway.
Is the CDC an organization that cares if these vaccinations have been found to be safe for use in pregnant women?
As we have previously reported, the CDC is the largest vaccine vendor, spending over $4 billion annually to purchase vaccines, which is a serious conflict of interest in overseeing vaccine safety.
(See: CDC's Purchase of $4 Billion of Vaccines a Conflict of Interest in Overseeing Vaccine Safety.)
Using the advice given to them by the AICP, the CDC stated:"..., ACIP made recommendations for use of Tdap in unvaccinated pregnant women and updated recommendations on cocooning and special situations."
By making this statement, the CDC has indicated that they agreed with the ACIP and recommended that the Tdap should be offered to pregnant women, for the protection of their unborn babies in the first few weeks of their lives.
The CDC continued by stating that:
"In pre-licensure evaluations, the safety of administering a booster dose of Tdap to pregnant women was not studied."
WHAT HAPPENED TO VACCINE PROTOCOL?
"Before any vaccine is marketed as safe and effective, it has to go through a series of clinical trials.
These trials are usually carried out in three phases.
Phase 1 includes safety and immunogenicity studies performed in a small number of closely monitored subjects.
Phase 2 studies are dose-ranging studies and may enroll hundreds of subjects.
Finally, phase 3 trials typically enroll thousands of individuals and provide the critical documentation of effectiveness and important additional safety data required for licensing.
This procedure is usually put in place by the FDA.
If a vaccine is going to be recommended for use on a particular group of individuals, you would have expected the manufacturers to have carried out extensive testing beforehand, especially on vulnerable individuals like pregnant women and their unborn babies.
The vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) and the manufacturer's registries are INCAPABLE of providing scientific evidence of vaccine safety.
This is because they have NO control group (and obviously are non-randomized or blinded) and therefore their data has NO VALIDITY in establishing a safety record for using the vaccine in PREGNANT WOMEN.
We need to ask ourselves, how a vaccine can be recommended for use in pregnancy if no clinical trials have been carried out on pregnant women.
When you read the CDC 2011 paper carefully, you will notice that they did reference JUST two SMALL studies that they have used to provide evidence of the vaccines' safety in pregnancy.
However, we believe that the numbers of participants were too small to provide substance for their claims.
The first study referenced by the CDC was a study titled 'Maternal immunization with tetanus–diphtheria–pertussis vaccine: effect on maternal and neonatal serum antibody levels', carried out by Stanley A. Gall, MD; John Myers, PhD; and Michael Pichichero, MD.
The researchers studied a total of JUST 104 pregnant women and vaccinated ONLY 52 of them.
Although the researchers stated that there were no adverse reactions, no safety data was provided; therefore, we only have their word for it.
It is also worth noting that the lead researcher, Stanley A. Gall, M.D., had received grants and research support from two leading vaccine manufacturers, GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of Boostrix, and Merck, where he served as a consultant.
"Dr. Stanley Gall has received grants/research support from GlaxoSmithKline and Merck, has served as a consultant for Merck, and has received honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline and Merck."
"Dr. Stanley Gall has received grants/research support from GlaxoSmithKline and Merck, has served as a consultant for Merck, and has received honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline and Merck."
Since the main researcher had conflicts of interest, how can this study be used as evidence?
The second of two studies referenced was conducted by Elizabeth A. Talbot, Kristin H. Brown, Kathryn B. Kirkland, Andrew L. Baughman, Scott A. Halperin, and Karen R. Broder, titled 'The safety of immunizing with tetanus–diphtheria–acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap) less than 2 years following previous tetanus vaccination: Experience during a mass vaccination campaign of healthcare personnel during a respirator illness outbreak'.
Once again, this study proved less than convincing, as the researchers only vaccinated a TOTAL OF JUST 16 pregnant women with the Tdap vaccination, and although VARIOUS ADVERSE EFFECTS WERE REPORTED THROUGHOUT THE STUDY, these were shrugged off by the CDC in their report as being unrelated to the vaccine.
It is clear from our investigations that the CDC has decided to recommend a potentially unsafe and ineffective vaccination for use in pregnancy, even though they cannot provide any convincing data to reassure mothers that it cannot harm their growing fetus.
Both studies used as evidence by the CDC only tested a small sample group, providing inadequate data to prove vaccine safety.
Any adverse events that were reported by the researchers were shrugged off by the CDC and said to be unlikely to have been caused by the vaccine.
As the CDC did not present any longitudinal studies to show whether or not this vaccine can cause any long term harm to children, how can parents be confident that it is safe?
Are There KNOWN Dangers Associated With DTaP and Tdap when administered to infants or children?
ASIDE FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF A SEVERE ALLERGIC REACTION THAT CAN BE IMMEDIATELY LIFE-THREATENING, WEB MD ALSO LISTS:
"Other very rare problems that have been reported include long-term seizures, coma or lowered consciousness, and brain damage."
MY GREAT CONCERN IS THAT NO STUDIES, NO DATA EXISTS ON WHAT CAN HAPPEN TO AN UNBORN CHILD, IN UTERO, WHEN THE MOTHER IS GIVEN ANY VACCINE.
BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A CLUE, WHY NOT ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION?
IF THE SAFETY OF UNBORN CHILDREN IS IMPORTANT TO YOU , PLEASE, SHARE THIS WITH ANY MOTHERS-TO-BE THAT YOU KNOW OR CARE FOR.
THEY NEED TO HAVE THIS KNOWLEDGE SO THEY CAN MAKE A TRULY WELL INFORMED DECISION.
MY GREAT CONCERN IS THAT NO STUDIES, NO DATA EXISTS ON WHAT CAN HAPPEN TO AN UNBORN CHILD, IN UTERO, WHEN THE MOTHER IS GIVEN ANY VACCINE.
BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A CLUE, WHY NOT ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION?
IF THE SAFETY OF UNBORN CHILDREN IS IMPORTANT TO YOU , PLEASE, SHARE THIS WITH ANY MOTHERS-TO-BE THAT YOU KNOW OR CARE FOR.
THEY NEED TO HAVE THIS KNOWLEDGE SO THEY CAN MAKE A TRULY WELL INFORMED DECISION.
IF THEY DECIDE TO BE VACCINATED ANYWAY, FINE, BUT PLEASE DO SHARE THIS.
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.
WE NEED ALL WE CAN GATHER.
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.
WE NEED ALL WE CAN GATHER.
______________________________
SOURCES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
~MUCH OF THE ABOVE WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED <HERE>.
THE TEA ROOM GIVES FULL CREDIT TO BOTH SAYER JI AND CHRISTINA ENGLAND WHOSE WEBSITE IS LINKED ABOVE.
OTHER WELL-RESEARCHED ARTICLES ON THE QUESTION OF VACCINES BY Ms. ENGLAND CAN BE FOUND <HERE>.
SOURCES AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
~MUCH OF THE ABOVE WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED <HERE>.
THE TEA ROOM GIVES FULL CREDIT TO BOTH SAYER JI AND CHRISTINA ENGLAND WHOSE WEBSITE IS LINKED ABOVE.
OTHER WELL-RESEARCHED ARTICLES ON THE QUESTION OF VACCINES BY Ms. ENGLAND CAN BE FOUND <HERE>.
[Disclaimer from Sayer Ji: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.]
THE SAME HOLDS TRUE FOR THE TEA ROOM HERE.
THE SAME HOLDS TRUE FOR THE TEA ROOM HERE.
"This document is being made free to download to the world at large in order to encourage the lay public, health professionals, activists, and elected officials alike to read, acknowledge and share the voluminous literature with their family, friends, colleagues and related stakeholders.
You will find this research undermines the national and global agenda to continue to expand the vaccine schedule (on behalf of a vaccine industry that is indemnified against lawsuit for defective or harmful products), with increasing legislative pressure to remove exemptions and mandate them against the evidence of harm and at best equivocal effectiveness as a preventive health measure. "
~ A GROWING NUMBER OF PHYSICIANS ARE CHANGING THE WAY THEY THINK ABOUT VACCINES.
Many doctors who consider themselves "pro-vaccine," for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.
Many doctors recommend a "delayed" vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule.
Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.
These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.
In this eBook, Brian Shilhavy summarizes the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.
A review by a pediatrician states:
by Jonathan Murphy: "As a pediatrician I'm so glad to read about other docs who are not blindly pushing a flawed vaccine product and schedule on patients.
by Jonathan Murphy: "As a pediatrician I'm so glad to read about other docs who are not blindly pushing a flawed vaccine product and schedule on patients.
There must be accountability for vaccine injuries...
We all need more information and extremist docs who use guilt to force vaccines on patients will come to appreciate informed consent once accountability is restored."
A review by a nurse states:
by Gloria Hostetler:
by Gloria Hostetler:
" As a nurse who has seen first hand many of the horrible side effects of vaccinations over the years from infants to the elderly, including myself. I have also seen the way the doctors ignore reality.
I wish everyone would read this!!
Of course you will make your own decisions but get as much information as possible before you decide, most importantly follow the money, it's all about money.
I can no longer participate in giving vaccinations to anyone, this puts me at risk to lose my job but I simply cannot do it any longer and look myself in the mirror."
~ FROM MS. ENGLAND'S WEBSITE:
Canadian physician Dr. Andrew Moulden provided clear scientific evidence to prove that every dose of vaccine given to a child or an adult produces harm.
The truth that he uncovered was rejected by the conventional medical system and the pharmaceutical industry.
Nevertheless, his warning and his message to America remains as a solid legacy of the man who stood up against big pharma and their program to vaccinate every person on the Earth.
Dr. Moulden died unexpectedly in November of 2013 at age 49.
Because of the strong opposition from big pharma concerning Dr. Moulden's research, we became concerned that the name of this brilliant researcher and his life's work had nearly been deleted from the internet. His reputation was being disparaged, and his message of warning and hope was being distorted and buried without a tombstone.
This book summarizes his teaching and is a must-read for everyone who wants to learn the "other-side" of the vaccine debate that the mainstream media routinely censors.
No comments:
Post a Comment