vaxxter--2020-01-14--The Short-Cut of Vaccination,  Part 2

The Short-Cut of Vaccination,  Part 2

The wisdom of our generations is that natural adversity , challenge , and correction all strengthen us over time .
Illness , especially infections , are a vital and helpful part of nature for all living beings – natural infection from organisms are not meant to be eradicated , but rather bested by our own bodily integrity .
Even measles is meant to be respected given that it is among nature ’ s symbiotic to eliminate cancer and other chronic illnesses .
Vaccinating against infections is like spraying your house with poison .
It may temporarily kill spiders or termites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last word in the house .
Poison is always short-sighted thinking , and mass poisoning of our entire planet with chemicals is simply suicidal .
Modern vaccination itself is suicidal .
Most people just haven ’ t learned why yet , which is precisely why there are 200+ new vaccines currently in research & development ( see also here ) – the process of learning this lesson is inevitable : we ’ ll either learn or kill ourselves trying .
People need to understand we are dealing directly with a human rights crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and our natural inclination for symbiosis with nature , we find harmony .
The process of interaction with nature may take more effort and may take longer than we desire , but ultimately it ’ s worth it .
Like an engineer who labors decades to complete a sustainable & fractal filtration system , quality and sustainability are worth it .
I am “ vaccine aware ” , not anti-vaccine .
I realize for example that Senator Pan and his vaccines are fulfilling a great purpose in society – to teach us a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustainable natural biological processes with unsustainable biotechnological dependency .
I am not anti-vaccine , anti-Pan , anti-cancer , etc , because I am not against society learning this lesson .
The lesson , once learned , is vital to protect us from the greater immediate and future threats of biotechnology .
Transhumanism follows the same pattern .
One recent example of transhumanism is the invention of ‘ neural lace ’ , which is like a computer lattice placed directly onto the neocortex of the brain to interact with the brain .
This ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s natural defense layers ( i.e.
, eyes , brain , skull ) because the ‘ neural lace ’ is connected directly into the human tissue .
So the artificial intelligence interacts directly with the human brain without natural filtration .
The predictable result of replacing biology with technology is the loss of natural character , injury , illness , disease , and biological death .
Indeed , even extraordinarily simple external computing applications today are causing neurodevelopmental issues .
Virtually every owner of a smartphone or 3D video games is today addicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Fundamental Issue of Our Time Modern history reveals we are increasingly dependent on the artificial .
And so the fundamental issue for our age is that we ’ re trying to replace biology with biotechnology .
And the faster “ progress ” we make ( i.e.
, vaccination , transhumanism , atomic particle manipulation ) the more we overextend our ability to remove ourselves from our natural bond and symbiosis with Earth and fellow humans as living , organic people .
We lose our tremendous abilities to protect and heal ourselves naturally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe and humane technology makes sense .
By contrast , today ’ s hyper-technocratic society , beholden to industrial special interests , depends on an experimentation strategy with technology .
This has already proven to be unsustainable because it is exponentially harming all biological systems .
Indeed , many scholars have projected that we are on the verge of planetary crises caused by unsustainable yet highly profitable technologies .
Vaccines are one of those unsustainable yet highly profitable biotechnologies .
We Create Our Reality , Even Mandatory Vaccination , For Lessons It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that 54 % of children in the United States are currently suffering one or more chronic illnesses under the current CDC vaccination schedule .
In every country , BigPharma is bursting at the seams trying to deny the obvious correlation between larger vaccine schedules and skyrocketing chronic illness numbers .
In America , because Pharma enjoys special interest legislation , making it legally immune from liability for vaccine injury , the government – our tax dollars – has paid more than $ 4billions to vaccine injury victims .
As a California lawyer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day regarding injuries caused by one or more of the 32-vaccine doses the State has mandated for our schoolchildren .
How much more extreme does this trend need to get before we learn and change as people ?
Mandatory vaccination bills such as SB 276 have targeted special needs children simply because they have not been designated to have a “ CDC contraindication.
” Pharma-sponsored legislators may mean well , but are engaged in a wholesale attack on natural and indigenous families who exercise their Constitutional right to decline the State-sponsored injections of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is every person ’ s Constitutional right to wisely and traditionally embrace natural health and lifelong natural immunity .
For example , multiple acts of Congress now recognize the inevitability of vaccine injuries .
And even the United States Supreme Court declared vaccines as “ unavoidably unsafe ” for product liability purposes .
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth ( 2011 ) .
While not a single child was injured or died in the United States from the hyped Disneyland measles outbreak in 2014-2015 , that ultimately lead to the passage of mandatory MMR vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same years the government data collection system on vaccine injury ( VAERS ) received 24 reports of children dying from a measles vaccine .
VAERS received 106 reports of a child being permanently disabled from a measles vaccine .
VAERS reported 358 children being hospitalized from a measles vaccine and 1,939 reports of a child being rushed to the emergency room from a measles vaccine .
Remember also that the real number of vaccine injuries during that time was most likely exponentially higher : Since VAERS is a passive system , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a confidential study conducted by Connaught Laboratories , a vaccine manufacturer , indicated that “ a fifty-fold underreporting of adverse events ” is likely .
According to David Kessler , former commissioner of the FDA , “ only about one percent of serious events [ adverse drug reactions ] are reported.
” Anyone who believes that we should abandon Constitutional checks & balances so that we can simply allow international pharmaceutical companies to inject people only with toxin-containing drugs , claiming this is good for them is neither a historian nor a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history and experience .
They know how to read between the lines “ vaccines are safe and effective ” – and recognize is it an archaic slogan similar to calling a can of Spam , “ America ’ s miracle meat !
” Calling vaccines safe and effective — it is not only untrue , but it is also corporate-sponsored advertising .
Like what you ’ re reading on Vaxxter.com ?
Share this article with your friends .
Help us grow .
Join our list here or text MVI to 555888

(This is the second article in a series by Greg Glaser, JD on “The Short-Cut of Vaccination”. Part 1 here)
Wisdom in Natural Adversity
The wisdom of our generations is that natural adversity, challenge, and correction all strengthen us over time. Illness, especially infections, are a vital and helpful part of nature for all living beings – natural infection from organisms are not meant to be eradicated, but rather bested by our own bodily integrity. Even measles is meant to be respected given that it is among nature’s symbiotic to eliminate cancer and other chronic illnesses.
Vaccinating against infections is like spraying your house with poison. It may temporarily kill spiders or termites, but nature will still have the last word in the house. Poison is always short-sighted thinking, and mass poisoning of our entire planet with chemicals is simply suicidal. Modern vaccination itself is suicidal. Most people just haven’t learned why yet, which is precisely why there are 200+ new vaccines currently in research & development (see also here) – the process of learning this lesson is inevitable: we’ll either learn or kill ourselves trying. People need to understand we are dealing directly with a human rights crisis.
When we awaken our natural processes and our natural inclination for symbiosis with nature, we find harmony. The process of interaction with nature may take more effort and may take longer than we desire, but ultimately it’s worth it. Like an engineer who labors decades to complete a sustainable & fractal filtration system, quality and sustainability are worth it.
I am “vaccine aware”, not anti-vaccine. I realize for example that Senator Pan and his vaccines are fulfilling a great purpose in society – to teach us a lesson about the consequences of replacing our sustainable natural biological processes with unsustainable biotechnological dependency. I am not anti-vaccine, anti-Pan, anti-cancer, etc, because I am not against society learning this lesson. The lesson, once learned, is vital to protect us from the greater immediate and future threats of biotechnology.
Transhumanism follows the same pattern. One recent example of transhumanism is the invention of ‘neural lace’, which is like a computer lattice placed directly onto the neocortex of the brain to interact with the brain. This ‘neural lace’ bypasses the body’s natural defense layers (i.e., eyes, brain, skull) because the ‘neural lace’ is connected directly into the human tissue. So the artificial intelligence interacts directly with the human brain without natural filtration. The predictable result of replacing biology with technology is the loss of natural character, injury, illness, disease, and biological death. Indeed, even extraordinarily simple external computing applications today are causing neurodevelopmental issues. Virtually every owner of a smartphone or 3D video games is today addicted to the technology at some level.
The Fundamental Issue of Our Time
Modern history reveals we are increasingly dependent on the artificial. And so the fundamental issue for our age is that we’re trying to replace biology with biotechnology. And the faster “progress” we make (i.e., vaccination, transhumanism, atomic particle manipulation) the more we overextend our ability to remove ourselves from our natural bond and symbiosis with Earth and fellow humans as living, organic people. We lose our tremendous abilities to protect and heal ourselves naturally.
I do not advocate for the abandonment of technology, but rather the precautionary principle and checks and balances to enforce sustainability of organic and natural humans, animals, plants, and planet. Vaccines are not organic.
The exploration of our universe with safe and humane technology makes sense. By contrast, today’s hyper-technocratic society, beholden to industrial special interests, depends on an experimentation strategy with technology. This has already proven to be unsustainable because it is exponentially harming all biological systems. Indeed, many scholars have projected that we are on the verge of planetary crises caused by unsustainable yet highly profitable technologies.
Vaccines are one of those unsustainable yet highly profitable biotechnologies.
We Create Our Reality, Even Mandatory Vaccination, For Lessons
It is an inconvenient truth, but scientists agree that 54% of children in the United States are currently suffering one or more chronic illnesses under the current CDC vaccination schedule. In every country, BigPharma is bursting at the seams trying to deny the obvious correlation between larger vaccine schedules and skyrocketing chronic illness numbers. In America, because Pharma enjoys special interest legislation, making it legally immune from liability for vaccine injury, the government – our tax dollars – has paid more than $4billions to vaccine injury victims.
As a California lawyer, I receive phone calls and emails every day regarding injuries caused by one or more of the 32-vaccine doses the State has mandated for our schoolchildren. How much more extreme does this trend need to get before we learn and change as people?
Mandatory vaccination bills such as SB 276 have targeted special needs children simply because they have not been designated to have a “CDC contraindication.” Pharma-sponsored legislators may mean well, but are engaged in a wholesale attack on natural and indigenous families who exercise their Constitutional right to decline the State-sponsored injections of biotechnology (pharmaceuticals/vaccines). Indeed, it is every person’s Constitutional right to wisely and traditionally embrace natural health and lifelong natural immunity.
For example, multiple acts of Congress now recognize the inevitability of vaccine injuries. And even the United States Supreme Court declared vaccines as “unavoidably unsafe” for product liability purposes. Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (2011).
While not a single child was injured or died in the United States from the hyped Disneyland measles outbreak in 2014-2015, that ultimately lead to the passage of mandatory MMR vaccine legislation across the country, during these same years the government data collection system on vaccine injury (VAERS) received 24 reports of children dying from a measles vaccine. VAERS received 106 reports of a child being permanently disabled from a measles vaccine. VAERS reported 358 children being hospitalized from a measles vaccine and 1,939 reports of a child being rushed to the emergency room from a measles vaccine.
Remember also that the real number of vaccine injuries during that time was most likely exponentially higher: Since VAERS is a passive system, it is inherently subject to underreporting. For example, a confidential study conducted by Connaught Laboratories, a vaccine manufacturer, indicated that “a fifty-fold underreporting of adverse events” is likely. According to David Kessler, former commissioner of the FDA, “only about one percent of serious events [adverse drug reactions] are reported.”
Anyone who believes that we should abandon Constitutional checks & balances so that we can simply allow international pharmaceutical companies to inject people only with toxin-containing drugs, claiming this is good for them is neither a historian nor a critical thinker.
Critical thinkers learn from history and experience. They know how to read between the lines “vaccines are safe and effective” – and recognize is it an archaic slogan similar to calling a can of Spam, “America’s miracle meat!”
Calling vaccines safe and effective — it is not only untrue, but it is also corporate-sponsored advertising.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Like what you’re reading on Vaxxter.com?
Share this article with your friends. Help us grow.
Join our list here or text MVI to 555888
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Greg Glaser is a health freedom lawyer in California.
Photo credit for featured image: qimono (Pixabay)


vaxxter--2020-01-15--My New Year’s Resolution Part I:  Read Labels and Throw Out the Old ‘Whine’

Part I : TB vaccine study in the New England Journal of Medicine The New England Journal of Medicine publishes its weekly online version for free .
Frequently they publish codswallop touting the safety and efficacy of some new vaccine .
On December 19 , 2019 , they detailed the results of a trial with a new tuberculosis vaccine .
A team of 27 scientists , MDs and PhDs , lead by Dereck Tait , experimented on adults ( ages 18-50 ) from three countries : South Africa , Zambia , and Kenya .
They injected them with what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim that this product from GlaxoSmithKline ( GSK ) works better than a placebo to reduce the incidence of “ first case definition ” tuberculosis .
For the Editors at the NEJM , such a declaration was good enough but … I actually read the study .
When I read the full report , the cross-references and clarify definitions , then looked at baseline infection rates , and considered the general health of the populations whence the samples were taken , the claims are falsified .
Funny how those who are not paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-profit funded in part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ) can determine that this latest report about a shiny new vaccine is just more of the same : another experiment where victims were injected with a toxic stew that did nothing to promote health or protect them from infection .
According to the article , the drug trial lasted nearly three years , using a population of “ HIV negative [ sic ] adults , all with [ Mycobacterium ] tuberculosis infection [ sic ] … who had no signs or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sputum specimen that was negative for M. tuberculosis ” ( Tait et al .
2019 ) .
Putting aside the problematic claims of HIV , we see that Tait et al .
tried to select nominally healthy adults .
But what of the claims about TB infection in the test subjects ?
According to the authors , the subjects were infected but had no signs or symptoms of disease .
By comparison , when TB rates were higher in the United States ( in the era of routine smallpox vaccination ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who lacked indoor plumbing .
The standard practice was to confirm TB via microscopic analysis of sputum ( see State v. Snow , 324 S.W.2d 532 ( Ark .
1959 ) ) .
Without the infection being confirmed by the sputum analysis , how can seemingly healthy people have a TB infection ?
Nearly every government in the world , recommends and or administers BCG vaccine to newborns or 1-2-month-old infants .
According to BCG World Atlas , Kenya and South Africa started injecting babies in the early 1970s .
Depending on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Zambia fall between 95 % and 100 % .
What effect might such a practice have on public health and TB rates – especially when people are malnourished , have poor hygiene , and have limited access to potable water ?
I am not surprised to read of high TB rates in countries where people lack toilets and soap .
According to UNICEF , in Zambia , only 31 % of the population use a basic sanitation services ( 49 % urban areas , 19 % rural areas ) ; only 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hand-washing facility with soap and water ( 26 % urban , 5 % rural ) .
As for Zambian schools : 21 % do not have potable water , 34 % do not have flush toilets , and 46 % lack hygiene services .
In such an environment , zymotic diseases will run rampant .
BCG vaccines are live vaccines derived from Mycobacterium bovis , a slow-growing aerobic bacterium and the causative agent of tuberculosis in cattle .
It is related to Mycobacterium tuberculosis , the bacterium which causes tuberculosis in humans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barrier and cause tuberculosis-like infection in humans .
The organism used in the BCG vaccine was cultivated and developed over a period of 13 years ( from 1908 to 1921 ) by two researchers , Calmette and Guerin , in Lille , France ( Grange et al .
1983 ) , hence the name BCG .
Not only does the mycobacteria stay active once injected , in a small percentage of people , it becomes actively virulent ( Grange et al .
1983 : 133-134 ) .
So the most likely reason that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the world , would test positive for TB is that they are injected with the organism that causes it !
Tait et al .
( 2019 ) report their results thusly : [ Note : Tait et al .
started with a total of 6903 subjects , but ultimately only used 3289 cases ] .
( a ) 3,573 received at least one dose of M72/AS01E or placebo [ sic ] , and 3,330 received both planned doses .
… 13 of the 1,626 participants in the M72/AS01E group , as compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the placebo [ sic ] group , had cases of tuberculosis that met the first-case definition ( incidence , 0.3 vs. 0.6 cases per 100 person-years ) .
( b ) The vaccine efficacy at month 36 was 49.7 % ( 90 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 12.1 to 71.2 ; 95 % CI , 2.1 to 74.2 ) .
( c ) Among participants in the M72/AS01E group , the concentrations of M72-specific antibodies … increased after the first dose and were sustained throughout the follow-up period .
( d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diseases , and deaths occurred with similar frequencies in the two groups .
Let me unpack these .
Note , Tait et al .
admit that some people , in what they call the placebo group , received one dose of the independent variable ( M72/AS01E ) .
So this study has no true control group .
The lack of any control , against which to compare the treatment , is made evident in the last comment about serious adverse events ( SAEs ) .
And what of efficacy ?
In his review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the early 1700s to the 1880s , White ( 1885 ) noted that the standard used to judge the efficacy of smallpox vaccination was the general death rate .
Since there are very few deaths today from the so-called “ vaccine-preventable ” infections , the standard used to determine vaccine effectiveness is the amount of antibody in the blood , called a titer .
According to Claire-Anne Siegrist ( 2018 ) , vaccination theory holds that the primary mechanism by which a vaccine mediates protection is in stimulating the production of antibodies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Vaccines ) .
Hence , at a minimum , in any paper published in the NEJM , should report the details of an increased titer level .
And more importantly , Tait et al .
only reported that the concentrations of M72-specific antibodies increased and remained elevated throughout the 3-year follow-up period .
They did not explain the amount of increase and had no definition for the level of protection the antibody conferred to their test subjects .
In section 5 of their synopsis of this very trial , the WHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not know how it works , or if titers per se improve health or protect from disease , perhaps we should focus on the simple question asked by critics of vaccination in the 19th century : “ What are illness and death rates ?
” For some bizarre reason – unexplained by the authors – the death rates were the same in the double-vaccinated and the placebo ( “ maybe once vaccinated ” ) groups .
If we only consider disease rates , I concede that Tait et al .
did report a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ i.e.
, those cases meeting the standardized criteria for TB disease ) .
At first glance , the disparity looks impressive : a comparison of 0.3 vs 0.6 per 100 person-years and might even be statistically significant , but … The concepts of Z-scores and t-tests are rudimentary in statistics .
I regularly teach students in my undergraduate courses on how to compare groups .
Chapter 9 of Healy ’ s Statistics ( 2009 ) shows how to calculate an interpret a z-score to compare two proportions .
Taking the data from Table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study , I followed Healy ’ s steps .
The results are not surprising .
For TB cases in person-years , Tait et al .
report that in their two-dose group , there were 13 cases of TB in 4427.61 person-years ( which equals a rate of 0.002936 per 100 person-years ) .
For the so-called placebo group , 26 versus 4463.07 ( for a rate of 0.005826 ) .
Superficially these rates seem distinct .
However , the only way to determine if the difference is not due to random chance or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calculate the z-score for the difference in these proportions .
Tait et al .
( 2019 ) did not produce such figures .
But I did ( and so can you ) .
The formula for a z-score of a difference of proportion is this : Since we know P1 and P2 ( the proportions of cases of TB in each test group ) , in order to construct the z-score that has a different proportion , we need the following information : ( a ) the pooled proportion ; and the ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proportion .
The pooled proportion is simply the total number of TB cases divided by the total number of person-years : 39 / 8890.68 , which is 0.0044 .
With this number , we apply the formula to calculate the standard deviation .
( See Healy , Chapter 9 ) .
In this instance , the standard deviation of the pooled proportion is 0.022 .
Putting the numbers into the formula we get : NOTE : A z-score between -1.96 and 1.96 is NOT statistically significant .
With a z-score so close to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that can be ascribed to this vaccine trial .
There can be little doubt that Tait et al .
( 2019 ) , and all the scientists at GlaxoSmithKline know how to do this math…and know ’ s the real answer to that too .
Like what you ’ re reading on Vaxxter.com ?
Share this article with your friends .
Help us grow .
John C. Jones received his law degree ( 2001 ) and his Ph.D. is in political science ( 2003 ) from the University of Iowa .
He has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( both academic and journalistic ) in fields of public policy and law , criminal and Constitutional law , and philosophy of science and medicine .
His additional areas of expertise and specialized knowledge include applied statistics , etymology , political communications/public relations , litigation and court procedure .
He has a particular interest in the science and history of vaccines .

by John Jones, JD, PhD, Vaxxter Contributor
Part I: Tuberculosis Vaccine study in the New England Journal of Medicine
The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) publishes its weekly online version for free. Frequently they publish codswallop touting the safety and efficacy of some new vaccine. On December 19, 2019, they detailed the results of a trial with a new tuberculosis (TB) vaccine.
A team of 27 scientists, MDs and PhDs, lead by Dereck Tait, experimented on adults (ages 18-50) from three countries: South Africa, Zambia, and Kenya. They injected them with what they call M72/AS01E and … surprise, they claim that this product from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) works better than a placebo to reduce the incidence of “first case definition” tuberculosis.
For the Editors at the NEJM, such a declaration was good enough but … I actually read the study.
When I read the full report, the cross-references and clarifying definitions, then looked at baseline infection rates, and considered the general health of the populations whence the samples were taken, their claims are falsified. Funny how those who are not paid by GSK (or Aeras, a non-profit funded in part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) can determine that this latest report about a shiny new tuberculosis vaccine is just more of the same: another experiment where victims were injected with a toxic stew that did nothing to promote health or protect them from infection.
About TB in Southern Africa
According to the article, the drug trial lasted nearly three years, using a population of “HIV negative [sic] adults, all with [Mycobacterium] tuberculosis infection [sic] … who had no signs or symptoms of tuberculosis disease and who had a sputum specimen that was negative for M. tuberculosis” (Tait et al. 2019).
Putting aside the problematic claims of HIV, we see that Tait et al. (2019) tried to select nominally healthy adults. But what of the claims about TB infection in the test subjects? According to the authors, the subjects were infected but had no signs or symptoms of disease.
By comparison, when TB rates were higher in the United States (in the era of routine smallpox vaccination), TB infections were usually found in people who lacked indoor plumbing. The standard practice was to confirm TB via microscopic analysis of sputum (see State v. Snow, 324 S.W.2d 532 (Ark. 1959)). But, without infection confirmation by the sputum analysis, how can seemingly healthy people have a TB infection?
It ’ s the Vaccine, Stupid!
Nearly every government in the world, recommends and or administers BCG vaccine to newborns or 1 to 2-month-old infants. According to BCG World Atlas, Kenya and South Africa started injecting babies in the early 1970s. Depending on the year, BCG administration rates for infants in Zambia fall between 95% and 100%. What effect might such a practice have on public health and TB rates, especially when people are malnourished, have poor hygiene, and have limited access to potable water?
For me, it’s no surprise to read of high TB rates in countries where people lack toilets and soap. According to UNICEF, in Zambia, only 31% of the population uses basic sanitation services (49% urban areas, 19% rural areas); only 14% of the population has access to a hand-washing facility with soap and water (26% urban, 5% rural). As for Zambian schools: 21% do not have potable water, 34% do not have flush toilets, and 46% lack hygiene services. In such an environment, zymotic diseases will run rampant.
Vaccines Are The Cause?
BCG vaccines are live vaccines derived from Mycobacterium bovis, a slow-growing aerobic bacterium and the causative agent of tuberculosis in cattle. It is related to Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the bacterium associated with tuberculosis in humans. M. bovis can jump the species barrier and cause tuberculosis-like infection in humans.
The organism used in the BCG vaccine was cultivated and developed over a period of 13 years (from 1908 to 1921) by two researchers, Calmette and Guerin, in Lille, France (Grange et al. 1983). Not only does the mycobacteria stay active once injected, in a small percentage of people, it becomes actively virulent (Grange et al. 1983: 133-134). So the most likely reason that anyone in Africa, or other parts of the world, would test positive for TB is that they are injected with the organism that can cause it!
Did the M72/AS01E Tuberculosis Vaccine ‘Work’?
[Note: Tait et al. (2019) started with a total of 6,903 subjects, but ultimately only used 3,289 subjects in the final analysis].
Tait et al. (2019) report their results thusly:
(a) 3,573 received at least one dose of M72/AS01E or placebo [sic], and 3,330 received both planned doses … 13 of the 1,626 participants in the M72/AS01E group, as compared with 26 of the 1,663 participants in the placebo [sic] group, had cases of tuberculosis that met the first-case definition (incidence, 0.3 vs. 0.6 cases per 100 person-years).
(b) The vaccine efficacy at month 36 was 49.7% (90% confidence interval [CI], 12.1 to 71.2; 95% CI, 2.1 to 74.2).
(c) Among participants in the M72/AS01E group, the concentrations of M72-specific antibodies … increased after the first dose and were sustained throughout the follow-up period.
(d) Serious adverse events, potential immune-mediated diseases, and deaths occurred with similar frequencies in the two groups.
Let me unpack these.
No Control Group
Note, Tait et al. (2019) admit that some people, in what they call the placebo group, received one dose of the independent variable (M72/AS01E). So this study has no true control group. The lack of any control, against which to compare the treatment, is made evident in the last comment about serious adverse events (SAEs).
Tait et al. (2019) found that SAEs occurred with similar frequencies in the two groups. But placebos shouldn’t create any serious adverse events. Apparently the editors at the NEJM saw nothing strange about the use of harmful and potentially deadly placebos. And Tait et al. (2019) were supposedly reporting on “safety”! This is what passes for “state of the art” vaccine science.
And what of efficacy? In his review of cites and nations in Europe, from the early 1700s to the 1880s, White (1885) noted that the standard used to judge the efficacy of smallpox vaccination was the general death rate.
No Correlation
But vaccination did not correlate with lower death rates in the 19th century (cf. White). Little wonder then that today, the primary standard used to determine if a vaccine is effective [sic] is the level of antibodies in the blood. Another name for this is titer.
According to Claire-Anne Siegrist (2018), vaccination theory holds that the primary mechanism by which a vaccine mediates protection is in stimulating the production of antibodies. (See Chapter 2 in Plotkin’s Vaccines). Hence, at a minimum, in any paper published in the NEJM, there should be detailed reports of an increased titer level. And more importantly, Tait et al. (2019) only reported that the concentrations of M72-specific antibodies increased and remained elevated throughout the 3-year follow-up period. The authors did not explain the amount of increase and had no definition for the level of protection that the antibody levels conferred to their test subjects.
How Does it Work?
In section 5 of their synopsis of this very trial, the WHO writes:
“The exact mechanism of action of M72/AS01E is not known. Previous studies have showed that this vaccine induces … activation of interferon-gamma producing CD4+ T cells, and the production of antibodies. WHO strongly urges basic research to [understand] how this vaccine works … to inform general understanding on the mechanisms of protection against tuberculosis.”
Well, if we cannot know how it works, or if titers, per se, improve health or protect from disease, perhaps we should focus on the simple question asked by critics of vaccination in the 19th century: What are illness and death rates? For some bizarre reason – unexplained by the authors – the death rates were the same in the double-vaccinated and the placebo (“maybe once vaccinated”) groups.
Now we come to the TB disease rates reported. Looking at their two groups, Tait et al. (2019) report a difference in the TB disease rate (i.e., those cases meeting the standardized criteria for TB disease). At first glance, the disparity of 0.3 vs 0.6 per 100 person-years looks impressive. It might even be statistically significant, but…
Comparing Two Proportions: Statistics 101
The concepts of Z-scores and t-tests are rudimentary in statistics. In my undergraduate courses, I regularly taught students how to compare groups. Chapter 9 of Healy’s Statistics (2009) shows us how to calculate and interpret a z-score to compare two proportions. Taking the data from Table 2 of the Tait et al. study, I followed Healy’s steps. The results are not surprising.
Measuring the numbers of TB cases in person-years, Tait et al. report that for their two-dose group, there were 13 cases of TB for 4427.61 person-years (which equals a rate of 0.002936 per 100 person-years). For the so-called placebo group, 26 versus 4463.07, the rate is 0.005826.
Superficially these rates seem distinct. However, the only way to determine if the difference is not due to random chance or another unaccounted for variable is to calculate the z-score for the difference in these proportions. Tait et al. did not produce such figures. But I did (and so can you).
The formula for a z-score of a difference of proportion is this:
z = (P1-P2) / standard deviation of pooled proportion
Since we know P1 and P2 (the proportions of cases of TB in each test group), in order to construct a z-score for the difference between two proportions, we need the following information: (a) the pooled proportion; and the (b) standard deviation of that pooled proportion.
Doing the Math
The pooled proportion is simply the total number of TB cases divided by the total number of person-years: 39 / 8890.68, which is 0.0044. With this number, we apply the formula to calculate the standard deviation. (See Healy, Chapter 9). In this instance, the standard deviation of the pooled proportion is 0.022.
Putting the numbers into the formula we get:
z = [(13/4427.62 – (26/4462.07)] / 0.022 = -0.1287
NOTE: A z-score which ranges between -1.96 and +1.96 is NOT statistically significant.
With a z-score so close to zero, how can anyone ascribe statistical certainty to this tuberculosis vaccine trial.
Every medical doctor and PhD who worked on this study knows how to calculate a z-score and evaluate if these proportions were statistically distinct. Their paymasters at GSK know the importance of proving that a drug trial generates a statistically significant result. Without finding a statistically significant difference in the disease rates of those who got the shots vs the placebo group, they all know that M72/AS01E is worthless.
Read Part II of my Tuberculosis Vaccine story: My New Year’s Resolution Part II: Read the Labels and Throw Out that Old Whine.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Like what you’re reading on Vaxxter.com?
Share this article with your friends. Help us grow. Join our list.
Or join our list by texting MVI to 555888 – follow the prompts
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John C. Jones received his law degree (2001) and his Ph.D. is in political science (2003) from the University of Iowa. He has over 15 years of research and writing (both academic and journalistic) in fields of public policy and law, criminal and Constitutional law, and philosophy of science and medicine. His additional areas of expertise and specialized knowledge include applied statistics, etymology, political communications/public relations, litigation and court procedure. He has a particular interest in the science and history of vaccines.
Photo Credit: ID 26651723 © Crazy80frog | Dreamstime.com


vaxxter--2020-01-16--My New Year’s Resolution Part II:  Read the labels and throw out that old whine.

Part II : What ’ s next for this vaccine ?
In Part I of my review of a TB vaccine trial , reported in the New England Journal of Medicine , among other things , I showed that statistically , we can not say , with any degree of certainty , that the GSK vaccine , M72/AS01E reduces TB disease rates .
Here in Part II , I flesh out more details about TB rates in Southern Africa , and show how the numbers generated by Tait et al .
( 2019 ) prove that the vaccine actually caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the subjects had no injections .
More About TB in Southern Africa What do we know about the incidence of real cases of TB in Southern Africa ?
A variety of organizations , institutes , and governments track and report on cases of tuberculosis at the national level .
Using data readily available to the public , I found that of the three ( Kenya , Zambia , and South Africa ) , perhaps Kenya has the highest TB disease rate at roughly 5.5 per 1000 in its adult population ( though it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
One study from 2016 estimated that the TB disease rate for adults in Zambia to be around 4.5 per 1000 ( with a range of 2.3 to 7.7 ) .
South Africa has about 5.2 TB cases per 1000 nationally ( and only 7 % are found in children under age 15 ) .
Those numbers fall within the extremes of the results found by Tait et al .
( 2019 ) .
But recall , they only used test subjects who were HIV negative .
So the what are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cohort ?
Using data from WHO , I factored out the comorbidity ( TB and HIV+ ) , and derived estimates for the TB rates of the HIV negative adult populations each nation .
Kenya reports that 27 % of her TB cases are HIV + , so I estimated her HIV- TB rate at 3.8 per 1000 .
TB in South Africa affects only 2.1 per 1000 who are HIV- ; and in its HIV- population , Zambia sees a mere 1.6 .
[ Note , for the HIV negative populations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease rate is lower than those who received two injections in this GSK vaccine trial ] .
These baseline numbers are important because they give us a means to evaluate the true efficacy of the vaccine protocol .
But we should also consider the trends .
In Kenya , the WHO says that TB peaked there in 2006 , at 6 per 1000 – and has dropped ever since .
Conversely monitors for BCG Atlas said that in 2011 , the TB rate in Kenya was only 2.3 ( i.e.
, lower than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then , if we can appreciate that in the recent past , TB disease rates in Kenya have dropped , we have reason to expect that samples will exhibit variability .
The numbers and estimates for disease rates go up and down , just like we find in the United States with outbreaks of ailments like measles , pertussis , parapertussis , and mumps .
South Africa saw its recent peak for TB infections in 2011 at 8.3 per 1000 .
Thus when Kenya was at a nadir , South Africa was hitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and continue to vaccinate babies with BCG .
Do we see any efficacy in giving the shots ?
The adult subjects for this GSK drug trial were enrolled from August 2014 through November 2015 .
That is , the TB rates of the test subjects should reflect the national samples estimates which used data from 2018 .
Though Tait et al .
( 2019 ) fail to disclose the exact proportions of participants by gender in each group , we can make some estimates and re-evaluate the efficacy of the GSK injectable .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ because real-world data show that in these countries , men have much higher TB disease rates than women ) .
In Table 2 , Tait et al .
( 2019 ) share the nationalities of those in the placebo group as : 1344 from South Africa ; 71 from Zambia ; and 248 were Kenyan .
Putting the pieces together , using TB incidence rates for the HIV negative adult population in each country , we can estimate , over the course of about 2.7 years ( the average number of years each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , how many in the placebo group , should have been diagnosed as ill , with TB .
We would expect 4.3 cases per 1000 people , for the duration of 2.7 years .
Given that these 1663 subjects endured 4463.07 person-years , the expected number of TB cases was 0.096 per 100 person-years !
Yes , you read that correctly .
By my account , the numbers for a true placebo group would have been far lower than what Tait et al .
( 2019 ) generated in their two-dose group .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Tait et al .
( 2019 ) made over 20 people sick with TB , for no reason other than they injected them with an experimental vaccine and a so-called placebo .
What was in the vaccine ?
What was used as a placebo ?
The injectable in the study is called M72/AS01E .
According to the WHO , “ M72/AS01E is … comprised of an immunogenic fusion protein ( M72 ) derived from two Mycobacterium tuberculosis ( M.tb ) antigens ( MTB32A and MTB39A ) , and the [ GSK ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case you – or anyone else – might be worried about the harms of the adjuvant , the WHO press release adds : “ AS01E is the same adjuvant used in Shingrix GSK vaccine , as well as in the new malaria vaccine RTS , S/AS01E.
” To paraphrase the character Jack Torrance from the film , The Shining , “ See , that adjuvant is okay .
We ’ ve seen it used on other people.
” But given that the expected TB numbers for the HIV negative adults populations of South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had no treatment , and were not in the study , was lower than the treatment group , what are we to conclude ?
Ceteris paribus , because of this study , we now know that either the adjuvant , the fusion protein M72 , and or the other unpublished ingredients in the vaccine – individually or synergistically – reduce immunity and promote illness .
In their synopsis of Tait et al ( 2019 ) , the WHO admits that researchers do not know how this vaccine works or whether stimulation of antibodies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ M72/AS01E does not reduce susceptibility to TB disease rates .
But curiously , writers for WHO insist that the M72/AS01E vaccine provides protection .
They write : “ The study has demonstrated protection approximately during two years of study follow up .
The final analysis of the study is expected to provide data on protection during 3 years of follow-up.
” But we know from the numbers that this vaccine provides no protection against disease .
And frankly , the research world knows it too .
In a 2015 article from the Journal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writes : “ At this time , a vaccine that could induce a form of immunity that , even years later , would prevent infection rather than disease is purely theoretical … ” So we know that theoretically a TB vaccine might prevent disease , but none could prevent TB infection .
Thus by injecting babies with BCG , every year , millions of defenseless infants are needlessly infected with Mycobacterium bovis – a type of tuberculosis .
Nevertheless , the NEJM , and GSK , and all the other stakeholders , want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It turns out that years ago , in 1978 and 1981 , two teams found the key to remediation for TB patients .
They demonstrated that they could kill “ strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis ” by “ immunologically activated macrophages ” – where the macrophages were stimulated with hydrogen peroxide .
See Grange et al .
( 1983 ) , references 35 and 36 .
And there it is .
For forty years real scientists have known that no vaccine can eliminate a bacteria , but something as simple as a high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oxygen in the form of H O will provide the body the fuel it needs to kill off harmful bacteria or at least keep them at homeostasis .
See Grange et al .
( 1983 ) , references 35 and 36 .
As with so many diseases , the experiments and their data show clearly : vaccines cause harm ; and vaccines are unnecessary for health and disease prevention .
This year , I urge you to invoke a new tradition : Read the studies .
Check their numbers .
Calculate the statistics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mis-leadership class know , “ We won ’ t get fooled again.
” Like what you ’ re reading on Vaxxter.com ?
Share this article with your friends .
Help us grow .
John C. Jones received his law degree ( 2001 ) and his Ph.D. is in political science ( 2003 ) from the University of Iowa .
He has over 15 years of research and writing ( both academic and journalistic ) in fields of public policy and law , criminal and Constitutional law , and philosophy of science and medicine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specialized knowledge include applied statistics , etymology , political communications/public relations , litigation and court procedure .
He has a particular interest in the science and history of vaccines .

by John Jones, JD, Ph.D., Vaxxter Contributor
Part II: What’s next for this tuberculosis vaccine?
In Part I of my review of a tuberculosis (TB) vaccine trial, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), among other things, I showed that statistically, we cannot say with any degree of certainty that the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) vaccine M72/AS01E reduces TB disease rates.
Here in Part II, I flesh out more details about TB rates in Southern Africa. I’ll also show how the numbers generated by Tait et al. (2019) prove that the vaccine actually caused more illness than should have occurred if the subjects had no injections.
More About TB in Southern Africa
What do we know about the incidence of real cases of TB in Southern Africa?
A variety of organizations, institutes, and governments track and report on cases of tuberculosis at the national level. Using data readily available to the public, I found that of these three nations, Kenya, Zambia, and South Africa, perhaps Kenya has the highest rate of tuberculosis. Kenya rate is roughly 5.5 per 1000 in its adult population, although it is only about 2.9 across all ages. One 2016 study 2016 estimates that the rate TB disease for adults in Zambia to be around 4.5 per 1000 (with a range of 2.3 to 7.7). South Africa has about 5.2 TB cases per 1000 nationally. And in children under the age of 15, the incidence is only 7%.
Those numbers fall within the extremes of the results found by Tait et al. (2019). But recall, they only used test subjects who were HIV negative. So what is the estimated incidence of TB in that sub-national cohort? Using data from WHO, I factored out the comorbidity (TB and HIV+) and derived estimates for the TB rates of the HIV negative adult populations in each nation. Kenya reports that 27% of her TB cases are HIV+. So I estimate their HIV- TB rate at 3.8 per 1000. Tuberculosis in South Africa affects only 2.1 per 1000 who are HIV-. Within its HIV- population, Zambia sees a mere 1.6.
[Note: for the HIV negative populations of Zambia and South Africa, their TB disease rate is lower than those who received two injections in this GSK vaccine trial].
Vaccine Efficacy Protocol
These baseline numbers are important because they give us the means to evaluate the true efficacy of the vaccine protocol. But we should also consider the trends. In Kenya, the WHO says that TB peaked in 2006, at 6 per 1000 – and has dropped ever since. Conversely monitors for Bacille Calmette Guerin (BCG) Atlas said that in 2011, the TB rate in Kenya was only 2.3 per 1000 (i.e., lower than present-day). Taking a broad view then, if we can appreciate that in the recent past, the incidence of TB in Kenya has dropped, we have reason to expect that samples will exhibit variability. The numbers and estimates for disease rates go up and down, just like we find in the United States with outbreaks of measles, pertussis, parapertussis, and mumps.
South Africa saw its recent peak for TB infections in 2011, at 8.3 per 1000. Thus, when Kenya was at a nadir, South Africa was hitting a crest. Yet both countries were, and continue to, vaccinate babies with BCG. Is there any efficacy in giving the shots?
The adult subjects for this GSK vaccine trial were enrolled from August 2014 through November 2015. That is, the TB rates of the test subjects should reflect the national samples estimates which used data from 2018. Though Tait et al. fail to disclose the exact proportions of participants by gender in each group, we can make some estimates and re-evaluate the efficacy of the GSK injectable.
(Note: my evaluations are skewed because real-world data show that in these countries, men have much higher TB disease rates than women).
The Real Numbers
In Table 2, Tait et al. (2019) share the nationalities of those in the placebo group as: 1344 from South Africa; 71 from Zambia; and 248 from Kenya.
Putting the pieces together, using TB incidence rates for the HIV negative adult population in each country, we can estimate, over the course of about 2.7 years (the average number of years each test subject was in the study), how many in the placebo group, should have been diagnosed as ill with TB. We would expect 4.3 cases of active TB per 1000 people for the study’s duration of 2.7 years. Given these 1663 subjects endured 4463.07 person-years, the expected number of TB cases was 0.096 per 100 person-years!
Yes, you read that correctly.
By my analysis, the numbers for a true placebo group would have been far lower than what Tait et al. generated in their two-dose group. And by definition, via their experiment, Tait et al. made more than 20 people sick with TB, for no reason other than they injected them with an experimental vaccine and a so-called placebo.
What was in the vaccine? What was used as a placebo?
The injectable in the study is called M72/AS01E. According to the WHO,
“M72/AS01E is … comprised of an immunogenic fusion protein (M72) derived from two Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb) antigens (MTB32A and MTB39A), and the [GSK] proprietary adjuvant AS01E.”
And just in case you – or anyone else – might be worried about the harms of the adjuvant, the WHO press release adds:
AS01E is the same adjuvant used in Shingrix, GSK vaccine for shingles, as well as in the new, experimental malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS01E.
To paraphrase the character Jack Torrance from the film, The Shining, “See, that adjuvant is okay. We’ve seen it used on other people.” But given that the expected TB numbers for the HIV negative adult populations of South Africa, Zambia, and Kenya who had no treatment, and were not in the study, was lower than the treatment group, what are we to conclude?
Ceteris paribus, because of this study, we now know that either the adjuvant, the fusion protein M72, and or the other unpublished ingredients in the vaccine, individually or synergistically, reduce real immunity and promote illness.
Avoiding Distraction and Looking Ahead
In their synopsis of Tait et al. (2019), the WHO admits that the researchers do not know how this vaccine works or whether stimulation of antibodies generates immunity. Obviously M72/AS01E does not reduce susceptibility to tuberculosis. But curiously, writers for WHO insist that the M72/AS01E vaccine provides protection. They write:
“The study has demonstrated protection approximately during two years of study follow up. The final analysis of the study is expected to provide data on protection during 3 years of follow-up.”
Keep in mind that their definition of “protection” is simply the presence of an antibody, which is the marker they will track for the next 3 years. But we know from the numbers that this vaccine does not prevent disease. And frankly, the research world knows it too.
Prevent Disease But Not Infection
In a 2015 article from the Journal of Clinical and Vaccine Immunology, Orme writes:
“At this time, a tuberculosis vaccine that could induce a form of immunity that, even years later, would prevent infection rather than disease is purely theoretical.”
So we know that theoretically, a TB vaccine might prevent disease, but none could prevent TB infection. Thus by injecting babies with BCG, millions of defenseless infants are needlessly infected each year with Mycobacterium bovis, a bacteria that causes tuberculosis in cows but can also infect humans. Nevertheless, the NEJM, GSK, and all the other stakeholders want us to put faith in their vaccines.
It turns out that years ago, in 1978 and 1981, two teams found the key to remediation for TB patients. They demonstrated that they could kill “strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis” with “immunologically activated macrophages” when the macrophages were stimulated with hydrogen peroxide. See Grange et al. (1983), references 35 and 36.
And there it is. For forty years real scientists have known that no vaccine can eliminate a bacteria. But something as simple as a high pH environment, and an infusion of oxygen in the form of H 2 O 2 (hydrogen peroxide) will provide the body the fuel it needs to kill off this harmful bacteria. See Grange et al. (1983), references 35 and 36.
These experiments and the resulting data show clearly: vaccines cause harm and vaccines are unnecessary for health and disease prevention.
This year, I urge you to start a new tradition: Read the studies. Check their numbers. Calculate the statistics yourself. Let big pharma and the mis-leadership class know, “We won’t get fooled again.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Like what you’re reading on Vaxxter.com?
Share this article with your friends. Help us grow. Join our list.
Or join our list by texting MVI to 555888 – follow the prompts
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John C. Jones received his law degree (2001) and his Ph.D. is in political science (2003) from the University of Iowa. He has over 15 years of research and writing (both academic and journalistic) in fields of public policy and law, criminal and Constitutional law, and philosophy of science and medicine. His additional areas of expertise and specialized knowledge include applied statistics, etymology, political communications/public relations, litigation and court procedure. He has a particular interest in the science and history of vaccines.
Photo Credit: ID 26651723 © Crazy80frog | Dreamstime.com


vaxxter--2020-01-16--My New Year’s Resolution Part II:  Read the Labels and Throw Out that Old Whine.

Part II : What ’ s next for this TB vaccine ?
In Part I of my review of a TB vaccine trial , reported in the New England Journal of Medicine , among other things , I showed that statistically , we can not say with any degree of certainty that the GSK vaccine M72/AS01E reduces TB disease rates .
Here in Part II , I flesh out more details about TB rates in Southern Africa and show how the numbers generated by Tait et al .
( 2019 ) prove that the vaccine actually caused more illness than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no injections .
More About TB in Southern Africa What do we know about the incidence of real cases of TB in Southern Africa ?
A variety of organizations , institutes , and governments track and report on cases of tuberculosis at the national level .
Using data readily available to the public , I found that of these three nations , Kenya , Zambia , and South Africa , perhaps Kenya has the highest rate of tuberculosis at roughly 5.5 per 1000 in its adult population , although it is only about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 2016 estimated that the rate TB disease for adults in Zambia to be around 4.5 per 1000 ( with a range of 2.3 to 7.7 ) .
South Africa has about 5.2 TB cases per 1000 nationally and in children under the age of 15 , the incidence is only 7 % .
Those numbers fall within the extremes of the results found by Tait et al .
( 2019 ) .
But recall , they only used test subjects who were HIV negative .
So what is the estimated incidence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data from WHO , I factored out the comorbidity ( TB and HIV+ ) and derived estimates for the TB rates of the HIV negative adult populations in each nation .
Kenya reports that 27 % of her TB cases are HIV + , so I estimated her HIV- TB rate at 3.8 per 1000 .
TB in South Africa affects only 2.1 per 1000 who are HIV- ; and in its HIV- population , Zambia sees a mere 1.6 .
[ Note , for the HIV negative populations of Zambia and South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower than those who received two injections in this GSK vaccine trial ] .
These baseline numbers are important because they give us the means to evaluate the true efficacy of the vaccine protocol .
But we should also consider the trends .
In Kenya , the WHO says that TB peaked there in 2006 , at 6 per 1000 – and has dropped ever since .
Conversely monitors for BCG Atlas said that in 2011 , the TB rate in Kenya was only 2.3 per 1000 ( i.e.
, lower than present-day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if we can appreciate that in the recent past , the incidence of TB in Kenya has dropped , we have reason to expect that samples will exhibit variability .
The numbers and estimates for disease rates go up and down , just like we find in the United States with outbreaks of measles , pertussis , parapertussis , and mumps .
South Africa saw its recent peak for TB infections in 2011 at 8.3 per 1000 .
Thus when Kenya was at a nadir , South Africa was hitting a crest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vaccinate babies with BCG .
Is there any efficacy in giving the shots ?
The adult subjects for this GSK vaccine trial were enrolled from August 2014 through November 2015 .
That is , the TB rates of the test subjects should reflect the national samples estimates which used data from 2018 .
Though Tait et al .
fail to disclose the exact proportions of participants by gender in each group , we can make some estimates and re-evaluate the efficacy of the GSK injectable .
( Note : my evaluations are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these countries , men have much higher TB disease rates than women ) .
In Table 2 , Tait et al .
( 2019 ) share the nationalities of those in the placebo group as : 1344 from South Africa ; 71 from Zambia ; and 248 from Kenya .
Putting the pieces together , using TB incidence rates for the HIV negative adult population in each country , we can estimate , over the course of about 2.7 years ( the average number of years each test subject was in the study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group , should have been diagnosed as ill with TB .
We would expect 4.3 cases of active TB per 1000 people for the study ’ s duration of 2.7 years .
Given these 1663 subjects endured 4463.07 person-years , the expected number of TB cases was 0.096 per 100 person-years !
Yes , you read that correctly .
By my analysis , the numbers for a true placebo group would have been far lower than what Tait et al .
generated in their two-dose group .
And by definition , via their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 20 people sick with TB , for no reason other than they injected them with an experimental vaccine and a so-called placebo .
What was in the vaccine ?
What was used as a placebo ?
The injectable in the study is called M72/AS01E .
According to the WHO , “ M72/AS01E is … comprised of an immunogenic fusion protein ( M72 ) derived from two Mycobacterium tuberculosis ( M.tb ) antigens ( MTB32A and MTB39A ) , and the [ GSK ] proprietary adjuvant AS01E.
” And just in case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be worried about the harms of the adjuvant , the WHO press release adds : AS01E is the same adjuvant used in Shingrix , GSK vaccine for shingles , as well as in the new , experimental malaria vaccine RTS , S/AS01E .
To paraphrase the character Jack Torrance from the film , The Shining , “ See , that adjuvant is okay .
We ’ ve seen it used on other people.
” But given that the expected TB numbers for the HIV negative adult populations of South Africa , Zambia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and were not in the study , was lower than the treatment group , what are we to conclude ?
Ceteris paribus , because of this study , we now know that either the adjuvant , the fusion protein M72 , and or the other unpublished ingredients in the vaccine , individually or synergistically , reduce real immunity and promote illness .
In their synopsis of Tait et al ( 2019 ) , the WHO admits that the researchers do not know how this vaccine works or whether stimulation of antibodies generates immunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tuberculosis .
But curiously , writers for WHO insist that the M72/AS01E vaccine provides protection .
They write : Keep in mind that their definition of “ protection ” is simply the presence of an antibody , which is the marker they will track for the next 3 years .
But we know from the numbers that this vaccine does not prevent disease .
And frankly , the research world knows it too .
In a 2015 article from the Journal of Clinical and Vaccine Immunology , Orme writes : “ At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could induce a form of immunity that , even years later , would prevent infection rather than disease is purely theoretical … ” So we know that theoretically , a TB vaccine might prevent disease , but none could prevent TB infection .
Thus by injecting babies with BCG , millions of defenseless infants are needlessly infected each year with Mycobacterium bovis , a bacteria that causes tuberculosis in cows but can also infect humans .
Nevertheless , the NEJM , GSK , and all the other stakeholders want us to put faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that years ago , in 1978 and 1981 , two teams found the key to remediation for TB patients .
They demonstrated that they could kill “ strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis ” with “ immunologically activated macrophages ” when the macrophages were stimulated with hydrogen peroxide .
See Grange et al .
( 1983 ) , references 35 and 36 .
And there it is .
For forty years real scientists have known that no vaccine can eliminate a bacteria , but something as simple as a high pH environment , and an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ H O ( hydrogen peroxide ) will provide the body the fuel it needs to kill off this harmful bacteria .
See Grange et al .
( 1983 ) , references 35 and 36 .
These experiments and the resulting data show clearly : Vaccines cause harm and vaccines are unnecessary for health and disease prevention .
This year , I urge you to start a new tradition : Read the studies .
Check their numbers .
Calculate the statistics yourself .
Let big pharma and the mis-leadership class know , “ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Like what you ’ re reading on Vaxxter.com ?
Share this article with your friends .
Help us grow .
John C. Jones received his law degree ( 2001 ) and his Ph.D. is in political science ( 2003 ) from the University of Iowa .
He has over 15 years of research and writing ( both academic and journalistic ) in fields of public policy and law , criminal and Constitutional law , and philosophy of science and medicine .
His additional areas of expertise and specialized knowledge include applied statistics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and court procedure .
He has a particular interest in the science and history of vaccines .


vaxxter--2020-01-19--What is the Boot Camp Course? How Does it Work?

The Mastering Vaccine Info ( MVI ) Boot Camp Course and Training is an 8-week intensive course that covers what you need to know to teach others about smallpox , polio , herd immunity , the schedules , the package inserts and the truth about what “ safe and effective ” really means .
Most importantly , you will learn the necessary language skills to communicate key concepts in sound bites , to confront bullies and how to stand your ground .
The course information coupled with the language training is what makes the MVI Boot Camp both unique and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course is only offered twice per year .
• Open Enrollment for the Spring 2020 course begins February 20 at 9:00 am EST • Enrollment closes on February 24 at 11:59pEST .
No exceptions !
The Course : The first module of the 8-week , online course will be released Saturday , February 29 ; subsequent lessons are released each Saturday .
The Course ends April 28 , 202o and will not be offered again until Oct/Nov .
2020 The Modules : Each Saturday morning , you will receive access to one or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modules are available in both MP4 and prezi format ( a prezi is a powerpoint presentation with a voiceover . )
The Content : We have created a core curriculum that everyone needs to know : the content , the delivery , and the responses .
We cover : 1 ) save/effective ; 2 ) smallpox/polio ; 3 ) the REAL specifics about herd immunity 4 ) teaching others how to read a package insert ; 5 ) the ramp-up of the vaccination schedules ; 6 ) the CoCasa and IIS tracking systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three lessons that are 3 hours each , on LANGUAGE training .
There are two additional courses offered and are explained here in the information about the bonuses .
Importantly : Are students who felt they “ already know ” these topics are actually those who rose to the top and learned the most !
The linear way the information is presented put our students – and our teammates – on the same path .
The pro-vaccine teams have training ; the MVI Boot Camp and information at VaccineU are the first-of-its-kind training @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Each module has up to 15 documents ( pdf files ) that are the peer-reviewed medical references that support the module ’ s information .
You are encouraged to download these references and print them for your course manual .
This material is available in the public domain , but we gathered the references into one place , your Docbox , for your convenience and additional study .
Weekly Online discussion : Every Thursday night at 9pEST , Matt and Dr. Sherri host a LIVE class using ZOOM .
The discussion will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We will discuss the current week ’ s module information and have on-going LANGUAGE training .
The Thursday night class is really the most important part of the course !
• If you can ’ t attend live , no worries !
We have students enrolled from all over the world and time zones , so the discussions are recorded .
• You can submit questions in advance if you can not attend live .
• The discussion is NOT streamed to Facebook .
It ’ s private .
J Communication : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ active communication boards and email access during the 8-week course .
Facebook : We will set up a private Facebook Group for Spring 2019 students , but participation in/on Facebook is **completely optional .
** Instead of Facebook , we will host a PRIVATE communication board within our website .
So , no , you DO NOT need to have a Facebook account to enroll in the course and get the most out of it .
Enrollment fee : The 8-week intensive + documents + private communication + weekly LIVE discussion + language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or $ 349 in two payments , at enrollment and the second payment is due on March 30 .
If payment is not received , access to the Course materials will be locked .
Guarantee We offer a 100 % money-back guarantee : If you have enrolled in the course and have participated in Module # 1 ( Safe and Effective ) and you have participated in the first Thursday night discussion , and decide the course is not what you thought it would be , we refund your enrollment fee in full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1:00pEST on Friday , March 6 .
No exceptions .

The Mastering Vaccine Info (MVI) Boot Camp Course and Training is an 8-week intensive course that covers what you need to know to teach others about smallpox, polio, herd immunity, the schedules, the package inserts and the truth about what “safe and effective” really means. Most importantly, you will learn the necessary language skills to communicate key concepts in sound bites, to confront bullies and how to stand your ground. The course information coupled with the language training is what makes the MVI Boot Camp both unique and powerful.
Enrollment:
The Boot Camp course is only offered twice per year.
Open Enrollment for the Spring 2020 course begins February 20 at 9:00 am EST
Enrollment closes on February 24 at 11:59pEST. No exceptions!
The Course: The first module of the 8-week, online course will be released Saturday, February 29; subsequent lessons are released each Saturday. The Course ends April 28, 202o and will not be offered again until Oct/Nov. 2020
The Modules: Each Saturday morning, you will receive access to one or two presentations (modules). The modules are available in both MP4 and prezi format (a prezi is a powerpoint presentation with a voiceover.)
The Content: We have created a core curriculum that everyone needs to know: the content, the delivery, and the responses. We cover: 1) safe/effective; 2) smallpox/polio; 3) the REAL specifics about herd immunity 4) teaching others how to read a package insert; 5) the ramp-up of the vaccination schedules; 6) the CoCasa and IIS tracking systems and how to opt-out. There are three lessons that are 3 hours each, on LANGUAGE training. There are two additional courses offered and are explained here in the information about the bonuses. Importantly: Are students who felt they “already know” these topics are actually those who rose to the top and learned the most! The linear way the information is presented put our students – and our teammates – on the same path. The pro-vaccine teams have training; the MVI Boot Camp and information at VaccineU are the first-of-its-kind training modules for our team.
The Docbox: Each module has up to 15 documents (pdf files) that are the peer-reviewed medical references that support the module’s information. You are encouraged to download these references and print them for your course manual. This material is available in the public domain, but we gathered the references into one place, your Docbox, for your convenience and additional study.
Weekly Online discussion: Every Thursday night at 9pEST, Matt and Dr. Sherri host a LIVE class using ZOOM. The discussion will not be broadcast into the Facebook Group. We will discuss the current week’s module information and have on-going LANGUAGE training. The Thursday night class is really the most important part of the course!
If you can’t attend live, no worries! We have students enrolled from all over the world and time zones, so the discussions are recorded.
You can submit questions in advance if you cannot attend live.
The discussion is NOT streamed to Facebook. It’s private. J
Communication: Matt and Dr. Sherri have open, active communication boards and email access during the 8-week course.
Facebook: We will NOT be set up a private Facebook Group for Spring 2020 students but we WILL be setting up a private group inside of www.VaccineFree.Zone. If you haven’t set up your FREE account yet on our new platform, do so now, even if you decide not to enroll in the Boot Camp Course and Training.
Enrollment fee: The 8-week intensive + documents + private communication + weekly LIVE discussion + language training is $595 in one payment or $349 in two payments, at enrollment and the second payment is due on March 30. If payment is not received, access to the Course materials will be locked.
Guarantee We offer a 100% money-back guarantee: If you have enrolled in the course and have participated in Module #1 (Safe and Effective) and you have participated in the first Thursday night discussion, and decide the course is not what you thought it would be, we refund your enrollment fee in full. The deadline for the refund in 1:00pEST on Friday, March 6. No exceptions.


vaxxter--2020-01-21--Vaccines 2020: Big Pharma’s Admissions of Fraud

Under the cover of the 2019 holidays , Big Pharma planted a couple of initiatives to drive vaccine uptake and compliance through the roof well into the next decade .
Beyond the mandates passed in California and New York , and then the blowback in New Jersey—the failed attempt to ban religious exemptions—combined with the hysteria over the measles outbreak in Samoa at the end of last year , it seemed Big Pharma and its proxies owned the momentum heading into 2020 .
In the first week of December , the WHO hosted the Global Vaccine Safety Summit in Geneva @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as usual , ” the two-day conference fell into an unusual intellectual gridlock .
Doubt seeped into the pro-vaccine “ choir ” of doctors and scientists .
Apparently , the WHO ’ s experts and their colleagues questioned the science on vaccine safety .
Come again ?
One can imagine a pin-dropping along with slacked jaws hitting the floor .
But then videos emerged showing the speakers , presenters , and bureaucrats discussing gaps in safety , the validity of efficacy , and the decline in “ trust ” with the global vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its minions falling in line , as they had done so in the past , they discussed , debated , and even argued about the failing medical and public “ belief ” in how safe and effective vaccines really are .
In a moment of mammoth-size irony , the once preachy World Health Organization ended the year with a whimper .
Recall that 2019 began with the WHO chanting “ vaccine hesitancy ” was one of the top ten threats to global health .
Air leaked out of the vaccine safety balloon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up their sleeves to obediently receive an endless series of shots for infections that did not impact their daily lives .
The public has been increasingly questioned the merits of vaccine claims , so are frontline medical professionals and scientists .
And that created the WHO ’ s own form of vaccine hesitancy , growing from sober discussions about the “ loose ” science behind vaccines being “ safe and effective.
” Where has this discussion been for the past thirty years ?
At the Vaccine Safety Summit , cracks appeared in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions .
Many of the scientists in attendance placed vaccines under the microscope for the first time since the illegal Simpsonwood meeting in 2000 .
Naturally , some of the CDC cult members who also attended the Simpsonwood conference sat through the year-end maelstrom of doubt as the discussion moved from defending the vaccine program to questioning adjuvants and the lack of safety studies .
Former CDC scientist , Dr. Robert Chen , was in attendance .
He looked a bit miffed , if not flustered , about the discussion , since he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chen is the director of Brighton Collaboration for The Task Force for Global Health—a consortium founded in 1984 by former CDC directors .
He worked for three decades at the CDC on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System ( VAERS ) , the Vaccine Safety Datalink ( VSD ) Project , and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment ( CISA ) Network .
And Walter Orenstein was present .
He is the director of the CDC ’ s National Immunization Program ( 1993-2004 ) , who hosted the Simpsonwood meeting , presented at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listened to their international colleagues question virtually every aspect about vaccines , including the ineffectiveness of some adjuvants in “ certain populations , ” one must wonder what crimped in their soul when they recalled their vaccine science was settled trope ?
Except , suddenly they came to the realization that the science on both safety and efficacy was never settled .
Worse , Dr. Soumya Swaminathan , the WHO ’ s chief scientist , admitted that “ vaccines kill ” and that “ they cause death.
” And then Dr. Swaminathan arrived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that flummoxed her in the 9-minute montage video , created by The HighWire with Del Bigtree on the speakers , stating : Dr. Martin Howell Friede , coordinator of the Initiative for Vaccine Research at the WHO , discussed the issues related to adjuvants and their paradox , saying , “ The first accusation is the adjuvant when it comes to vaccine injuries and vaccine side-effects.
” He then gave advice regarding the design of new vaccines : “ If you can avoid using an adjuvant , please do so .
And if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history of safety.
” Which begs the question : Which adjuvant has a scientifically proven “ history of safety ” ?
Dr. Stephen Evans , professor of Pharmacoepidemiology , piled on the adjuvants train wreck by stating in measured terms : Then Dr. Bassey Okposen , program manager of Nigeria ’ s National Emergency Routine Immunization Coordination Centre , questioned whether safety studies have ever been done on adjuvants from multiple vaccines given at one time and what their “ cross-reactions ” would be ?
The auditorium full of experts were unable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have ever been done .
Beyond that , no synergistic toxicity studies have even been entertained or sponsored by the WHO , CDC , or NIH .
The shocking admission that no studies have ever been conducted on the safety of adjuvants – including aluminum , which has been used in vaccines since the 1920s – completely vaporizes the “ settled science ” paradigm .
Then the push back came .
And it came from former CDC vaccine data data scientist Robert Chen , who had been involved in killing the link between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s “ no association ” model following Simpsonwood .
In fact , that secret meeting showed a clear trend line between the preservative thimerosal in vaccines and the link to the autism epidemic .
Now , the only way to tease that out is if you have a large population database like the vaccine safety datalink , as well as some of the other national databases that are coming to being worthy .
Actual vaccine exposure is trapped down to that level of specificity of who is the manufacturer ?
What is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And there ’ s an initiative to try to make the vaccine label information barcoded so that it includes that level of information… The sample size becomes more and more challenging , and that ’ s what I said earlier today … that we ’ re really only in the beginning of the era of large datasets , where hopefully you could start to kind of harmonize the databases for multiple studies .
And there ’ s actually an initiative underway… Marion [ Gruber , FDA ’ s director Office of Vaccines ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to get more national vaccine safety database linked together so we could start to answer these types of questions that you just raised.
” What Chen was insinuating , what he was implying , what he was alluding to is this : We really don ’ t need more studies .
We just need to link existing databases on vaccine studies and vaccine adverse events and mine them .
I am sure the data you are looking for already exists .
One must know the history of the CDC to understand where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1980s , when thousands of Vietnam veterans were suffering from rare diseases and acute cancers , the CDC was given $ 70.4 million budget to conduct four epidemiological studies over a seven-year period on the effect of Agent Orange on the health of Vietnam veterans .
Drs .
Coleen Boyle and Frank DeStefano , the principal and deputy investigators , respectively , were the CDC ’ s ideal tandem of scientists .
They were tasked “ not to find ” an association between Agent Orange and the dying veterans .
Five years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t align Operation Ranch Hand flight patterns with troop movements on the ground .
But the US Army said they held those records in a warehouse in Pennsylvania that would make the connection .
Instead of requesting the archived documents , the CDC aborted the study two years early , leaving $ 20 million on the table .
Boyle , to this day , writes about Agent Orange as if there still is no association between dioxin and third-generation birth defects of Vietnamese , despite the fact she ended the study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an association .
The CDC didn ’ t fire Boyle and DeStefano back in the 1980s over the Agent Orange fiasco ; they promoted them .
Thus , when the MMR and thimerosal fires broke out and the public began demanding answers , the CDC erupted in a panic .
They knew the link between the MMR vaccine and thimerosal ( mercury ) to the skyrocketing rates of autism must be buried .
The CDC was so focused on protecting vaccine “ confidence , ” instead of caring about the health of America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the truth were ignored .
At that point , the CDC committed two separate , but parallel , scientific frauds .
First , they hired rogue Danish scientist Poul Thorsen , who the time , was a visiting scientist at the CDC .
He was hired to mine the Danish Health Registry , a database that tracks the health history of all Danish citizens from birth .
Coleen Boyle oversaw the Thorsen studies on MMR and on thimerosal to make sure ‘ no association ’ between vaccines and the neurological disorder were found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parameters of a study midstream .
I captured all of the corruption and international fraud in my book Master Manipulator : The Explosive True Story of Fraud , Embezzlement , and Government Betrayal at the CDC .
At the same time , Dr. Frank DeStefano carried out the domestic fraud .
He “ cooked the books ” of the Atlanta-based MMR study with Boyle and vaccine whistleblower Dr. William Thompson .
Ultimately , after Thompson admission came out in 2014 , the world learned that the CDC destroyed the datasets for the domestic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine science before it was outed .
The WHO and Robert Chen : Tired Arguments So , is this what Brighton Collaboration Director Bob Chen was referring to at the Vaccine Safety meeting , when he said that “ datasets ” are a great place to mine vaccine safety data ?
And does the WHO want to walk down the CDC ’ s worn path of corruption to produce false “ no association ” results one more time ?
Maybe it ’ s time to examine the WHO ’ s role in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s children .
Maybe it ’ s time to defund them by keeping supportive U.S. tax dollars onshore .
That would be one way to guarantee that aborting scientific health studies midstream and cooking and destroying datasets would no longer be tolerated .
It would also put the pharma-sponsored scientists at the WHO on notice : we know what you ’ re doing and what you have done .
Like what you ’ re reading on Vaxxter.com ?
Share this article with your friends .
Help us grow .
Join our list here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has written and published as a freelance journalist and columnist , covering subjects from autism , its cause and treatments , clean technology , green energy , and the BP Oil Spill , to business and Wall Street , and completed investigative reports on a wide range of topics since 2005 .
He is the founder of the cloud-based software startup in 2011 to integrate supply chain logistics in the Construction IT space .
He has 25 years of consulting engineering and construction management experience on projects of scale and complexity in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the author of Master Manipulator : The Explosive True Story of Fraud , Embezzlement and the Government Betrayal at the CDC .

By James Grundvig, Investigative Reporter and Vaxxter contributor
Under the cover of the 2019 holidays, Big Pharma planted a couple of initiatives to drive vaccine uptake and compliance through the roof well into the next decade. Beyond the mandates passed in California and New York, and then the blowback in New Jersey — the failed attempt to ban religious exemptions — combined with the hysteria over the measles outbreak in Samoa at the end of last year, it seems Big Pharma and its proxies owned the momentum heading into 2020.
Then something strange happened.
In the first week of December, the WHO hosted the Global Vaccine Safety Summit in Geneva, Switzerland. Instead of “business as usual,” the two-day conference fell into an unusual intellectual gridlock. Doubt seeped into the pro-vaccine “choir” of doctors and scientists.
Why?
Apparently, the WHO’s experts and their colleagues questioned the science on vaccine safety. Come again? One can imagine a pin-dropping along with slacked jaws hitting the floor. But then videos emerged showing the speakers, presenters, and bureaucrats discussing gaps in safety, the validity of efficacy, and the decline in “trust” with the global vaccine program. Instead of the WHO and its minions falling in line, as they had done so in the past, they discussed, debated, and even argued about the failing medical and public “belief” in how safe and effective vaccines really are.
THE BOOT CAMP IS COMING SOON – CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION
The Irony of ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’
In a moment of mammoth-size irony, the once preachy World Health Organization ended the year with a whimper. Recall that 2019 began with the WHO chanting “vaccine hesitancy” was one of the top ten threats to global health.
What happened?
Air leaked out of the vaccine safety balloon. People were no longer willing to roll up their sleeves to obediently receive an endless series of shots for infections that did not impact their daily lives. The public increasingly questions the merits of vaccine claims. So are frontline medical professionals and scientists.
And that created the WHO’s own form of vaccine hesitancy. It began growing from sober discussions about the “loose” science behind vaccines being “safe and effective.”
Where has this discussion been for the past thirty years?
At the Vaccine Safety Summit, cracks appeared in their collective narrative. Talking points turned into questions. Many of the scientists in attendance placed vaccines under the microscope for the first time since the illegal Simpsonwood meeting in 2000. Naturally, some of the CDC cult members who also attended the Simpsonwood conference sat through the year-end maelstrom of doubt. This, even as the discussion moved from defending the vaccine program to questioning adjuvants and the lack of safety studies.
Two attendees caught my attention:
Former CDC scientist, Dr. Robert Chen, was in attendance. He looked a bit miffed, if not flustered, about the discussion, since he thought vaccine science was settled. Robert Chen is the director of Brighton Collaboration for The Task Force for Global Health — a consortium founded in 1984 by former CDC directors. He worked for three decades at the CDC on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) Project, and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network.
And Walter Orenstein was present. He is the director of the CDC’s National Immunization Program (1993-2004), who hosted the Simpsonwood meeting, presented at the WHO Vaccine Safety Summit.
When they listened to their international colleagues question virtually every aspect about vaccines, including the ineffectiveness of some adjuvants in “certain populations,” one must wonder what crimped in their soul when they recalled their vaccine science was settled trope? Except, the realization hit that the science on both safety and efficacy still needs settling. Worse, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, the WHO’s chief scientist, admitted that “vaccines kill” and that “they cause death.”
Less Trust in the System
And then Dr. Swaminathan arrived at the real crux of the matter that flummoxed her in the 9-minute montage video, created by The HighWire with Del Bigtree on the speakers, stating:
I think I cannot over emphasize the fact that we really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries, and this adds to the miscommunication and the misapprehensions because we are not able to give clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine and this always gets blown up in the media… One should be able to give a very factual account of exactly what happened and what the cause of [the] deaths are, but in most cases there’s some obfuscation on that level and therefore, there is less and less trust then in the system.”
Dr. Martin Howell Friede, coordinator of the Initiative for Vaccine Research at the WHO, discussed the issues related to adjuvants and their paradox. Friede says, “The first accusation is the adjuvant when it comes to vaccine injuries and vaccine side-effects.”
Friede added:
Without adjuvants we are not going to have the next generation of vaccines … Many of the vaccines we do have require adjuvants for the vaccines to work. So, the challenge we have in front of us is how do we build confidence in this?
He then gave advice regarding the design of new vaccines: “If you can avoid using an adjuvant, please do so. And if you must, use one with a history of safety.”
Which begs the question: Which adjuvant has a scientifically proven “history of safety”?
History of Safety?
Dr. Stephen Evans, professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, piled on the adjuvants train wreck by stating in measured terms:
It seems to me they [adjuvants] multiply the reactogenicity in many instances, and therefore it seems to me that it is not unexpected if they multiply the incidence of adverse reactions…”
Then Dr. Bassey Okposen, program manager of Nigeria’s National Emergency Routine Immunization Coordination Centre, questioned whether safety studies have ever been done on adjuvants from multiple vaccines given at one time and what their “cross-reactions” would be? The auditorium full of experts were unable to answer his questions since no such studies have ever been done. Beyond that, no synergistic toxicity study will ever receive recognition or sponsorship by the WHO, CDC, or NIH.
The shocking admission that no study have ever been conducted on the safety of adjuvants completely vaporizes the “settled science” paradigm. This includes aluminum, which is present in vaccines going back to the 1920s.
The CDC Playbook of ‘No Association’
Then the push back came. And it came from former CDC vaccine data data scientist Robert Chen, who had been involved in killing the link between vaccines and autism with the agency’s “no association” model following Simpsonwood. In fact, that secret meeting showed a clear trend line between the preservative thimerosal in vaccines and the link to the autism epidemic.
Robert Chen, countered:
Now, the only way to tease that out is if you have a large population database like the vaccine safety datalink, as well as some of the other national databases that are coming to being worthy. Actual vaccine exposure is trapped down to that level of specificity of who is the manufacturer? What is the lot number? Etc, etc. And there’s an initiative to try to make the vaccine label information barcoded so that it includes that level of information… The sample size becomes more and more challenging, and that’s what I said earlier today … that we’re really only in the beginning of the era of large datasets, where hopefully you could start to kind of harmonize the databases for multiple studies. And there’s actually an initiative underway… Marion [Gruber, FDA’s director Office of Vaccines] may want to comment on it to try to get more national vaccine safety database linked together so we could start to answer these types of questions that you just raised.”
What Chen was insinuating, what he was implying, what he was alluding to is this:
We really don’t need more studies. We just need to link existing databases on vaccine studies and vaccine adverse events and mine them. I am sure the data you are looking for already exists.
One must know the history of the CDC to understand where Robert Chen is coming from.
THE BOOT CAMP IS COMING SOON – CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION
1980s CDC Agent Orange Studies
During the 1980s, when thousands of Vietnam veterans were suffering from rare diseases and acute cancers, the CDC was given $70.4 million budget to conduct four epidemiological studies over a seven-year period on the effect of Agent Orange on the health of Vietnam veterans. Drs. Coleen Boyle and Frank DeStefano, the principal and deputy investigators, respectively, were the CDC’s ideal tandem of scientists. They task? “Not to find” an association between Agent Orange and dying veterans.
Five years into the study and no connection came about. They claimed they couldn’t align Operation Ranch Hand flight patterns with troop movements on the ground. But the US Army said they held those records in a warehouse in Pennsylvania that would make the connection.
Instead of requesting the archived documents, the CDC aborted the study two years early, leaving $20 million on the table. Boyle, to this day, writes about Agent Orange as if there still is no association between dioxin and third-generation birth defects of Vietnamese. This is still the case, despite the fact that the study ends before the association could confirm or deny an association.
2000 Simpsonwood Mercury Meeting
The CDC didn’t fire Boyle and DeStefano back in the 1980s over the Agent Orange fiasco; they promoted them. Thus, when the MMR and thimerosal fires broke out and the public began demanding answers, the CDC erupted in a panic. They knew the link between the MMR vaccine and thimerosal (mercury) to the skyrocketing rates of autism must be buried. The CDC was so focused on protecting vaccine “confidence.” Instead, they should be caring about the health of America’s children. But unfortunately, the science and the truth are being ignored.
At that point, the CDC committed two separate, but parallel, scientific frauds.
First, they hired rogue Danish scientist Poul Thorsen, who at the time, was a visiting scientist at the CDC. His role? Mining the Danish Health Registry (DHR). The DHR is a database that tracks the health history of all Danish citizens from birth. Coleen Boyle oversaw the Thorsen studies on MMR and on thimerosal. Another Dr. working to make sure “no association” between vaccines and the neurological disorder were found. This, even if it meant changing the parameters of a study midstream.
I captured all of the corruption and international fraud in my book Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC.
At the same time, Dr. Frank DeStefano carried out the domestic fraud. He “cooked the books” of the Atlanta-based MMR study with Boyle and vaccine whistleblower Dr. William Thompson. Ultimately, after Thompson admission came out in 2014, the world learned that the CDC destroyed the datasets for the domestic fraud that was long bandied about as vaccine science before it was outed.
The WHO and Robert Chen: Tired Arguments
So, is this what Brighton Collaboration Director Bob Chen was referring to at the Vaccine Safety meeting? Is this what he means when saying that “datasets” are a great place to mine vaccine safety data? And does the WHO want to walk down the CDC’s worn path of corruption? Do they want to produce false “no association” results one more time?
Maybe it’s time to examine the WHO’s role in the massive decline in health of America’s children. Maybe it’s time to defund them by keeping supportive U.S. tax dollars onshore.
That would be one way to guarantee that aborting scientific health studies midstream and cooking and destroying datasets would no longer be tolerated. It would also put the pharma-sponsored scientists at the WHO on notice. We know what you’re doing and what you have done.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Like what you’re reading on Vaxxter.com?
Share this article with your friends. Help us grow.
Join our list here or text MVI to 555888
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
James Grundvig has written and published as a freelance journalist and columnist, covering subjects from autism, its cause and treatments, clean technology, green energy, and the BP Oil Spill, to business and Wall Street, and completed investigative reports on a wide range of topics since 2005. James is the founder of the cloud-based software startup in 2011 to integrate supply chain logistics in the Construction IT space. He has 25 years of consulting engineering and construction management experience on projects of scale and complexity in the New York City area. He is the author of Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement and the Government Betrayal at the CDC.
photo credit: https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2019/12/02/default-calendar/global-vaccine-safety-summit