News:

this is a news item (test)

Main Menu

MMR LINK TO 'AUTISM': VACCINES AS AGENT OF GENOCIDE

Started by M O'D, August 21, 2014, 10:54:46 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

M O'D


The slow killing of millions via vaccinations is genocide by poisoning...

Quote

Breaking: autism, MMR vaccine, CDC coverup

by Jon Rappoport

August 20, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Sources: Age of Autism, Focus Autism Foundation—

Age of Autism 8/18 article: "Senior government scientist breaks 13 years' silence on CDC's vaccine-autism fraud."

CDC research scientist comes forward, anonymously, comes clean, tells Dr. Brian Hooker that the CDC has known about the MMR vaccine connection to autism for at least 11 years.

Has known, and has intentionally covered it up.

The CDC and the US government have gone to extreme lengths to assert there is no vaccine-autism connection.

This CDC scientist has spoken with Brian Hooker, a PhD in biochemical engineering, many times.

Hooker states he has seen raw CDC data not included in any study. And the data show that:

African-American boys who receive their first MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine before the age of 36 months have a 300% increased risk for autism.

If this is true, what else is the CDC hiding?

From the Age of Autism article (8/18): "Dr. Hooker has worked closely with the CDC whistleblower, and he viewed highly sensitive documents related to the [fraudulent government] study via Congressional request from U.S. Representative Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The CDC documents from Congress and discussions that Hooker had with the whistleblower reveal widespread manipulation of scientific data and top-down pressure on CDC scientists to support fraudulent application of government policies on vaccine safety."

If all this is true, then the CDC has stood by for the last decade and done nothing, while the MMR vaccine has damaged the brains of many, many children.

You may recall that Dr. Andrew Wakefield pointed out a likely connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. British authorities and the CDC destroyed his career.

Wakefield now states: "Over a decade ago, Dr. Scott Montgomery and I put forward a hypothesis for MMR vaccine and autism: the age you receive the vaccine influences the risk. ...We shared this hypothesis with vaccine officials, members of the Centers for Disease Control, at meetings in Washington, D.C. and Cold Spring Harbor. A group of senior vaccine safety people at the CDC studied it. It panned out. We were right–at least partly. By Nov 9, 2001, nearly thirteen years ago, senior CDC scientists knew that the younger age exposure to MMR was associated with an increased risk of autism. In 2004 they published, but they hid the results. ..."

power outside the matrix

There is another angle on all this. It has to do with how diseases and disorders are labeled and defined.

There is no definitive test for autism. The criteria for diagnosis are a menu of behaviors. Therefore, we are looking at a wide net which includes all sorts of brain and neurological damage.

Official studies are done which "show" that some cases of what's called autism are not preceded by vaccination—and therefore, vaccines couldn't be "the single cause of the single disease called autism."

That proof, of course, is completely false—because what's called autism isn't a single disease. It's neurological damage, which can have a number of causes.

And now we are looking at one of those causes: the MMR vaccine.

If in the coming days, the CDC claims they've already eliminated the possibility that vaccines are the cause of autism, you'll understand their shell game, their con, their ruse.

They've stacked the deck, so they can roll out so-called cases of autism which have no connection to the MMR vaccine.

It's hoax by labels and semantics.

While vaccines continue to damage the brains of children.

(This story continues here.)

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/breaking-mmr-vaccine-autism-cdc-coverup/

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

QuoteDo we have a "medical Edward Snowden?"

by Jon Rappoport

August 20, 2014

www.nomorefakenews.com

Update: US Congressman stonewalled by the CDC:

As I get ready to post this article, I have a reply to a request I made to Florida Congressman Bill Posey. I asked for a statement regarding the growing charge that the CDC is covering up an autism-vaccine connection. Here is what Congressman Posey has to say on this subject:

"When it comes to our children, we must make sure that any intervention is as safe as possible, including vaccinations. Scientific integrity is a key component to giving that assurance. I will continue to press for a full understanding of the evidence in this situation. The CDC has refused for more than six months to hand over documents I requested concerning this issue. That is not the type of response we expect from our government."

Congressman stonewalled. He asked the CDC for data and the CDC refused. Refusal=something to hide.

Why else would the CDC ignore Posey's request? What right does the CDC have to conceal data about vaccines and autism?

In my previous article today, I highlighted a secret CDC whistleblower, who has anonymously asserted that the CDC intentionally covered up the vaccine-autism connection for a decade.

In the last few hours, I've discovered a few facts about him.

He is a research scientist.

Surprisingly, he still works for the CDC.

He is seriously considering coming forward soon, revealing his name, and speaking to the press.

The CDC hasn't yet contacted him to explain himself, hasn't yet fired him or taken any action against him.

But the CDC undoubtedly knows who he is. It's no mystery. From what this whistleblower has revealed so far, the CDC would easily be able to identify him.

The whistleblower knows this.

He has an attorney. It's not clear whether he can obtain whistleblower status and protection.

I urge him to come forward, reveal his name, and talk. I urge him to tell everything he knows. The public needs to hear his evidence.

And at this point, his best protection is disclosure. Stand up. Tell the whole truth.

There are other researchers at the CDC who would be severely impacted by his disclosure. Like the whistleblower, they covered up the vaccine-autism connection. Unlike him, they haven't admitted it.

If this CDC scientist steps forward into the light, he could cause a firestorm. The CDC would immediately, of course, reject his claims.

They would say something like this: "Yes, it's true that, ten years ago, we studied autism and the MMR vaccine, but the whole thrust and pattern of the data we compiled had to be considered, not just one piece. We did look at all the data, and we reached the correct conclusion. There is no evidence that the MMR vaccine causes autism."

The CDC would count on their allies in the press to swallow this statement whole and treat the story as a minor blip on the radar.

They would count on their allies to ignore what the whistleblower is actually saying: that in a CDC 2004 study, a whole raft of significant and damning data was thrown out and ignored, thus making it seem there was no vaccine-autism connection.

It's also quite possible that the CDC will try to personally discredit the whistleblower, through character attacks. Is he ready for this? Will he stand up to it?

He needs to come forward now, to allay any suspicion that he was prepped to release false information as if it were true, and then ensnare vaccine critics.

In this vicious game, anything is possible.

Half-admissions won't carry the day. Half-light and half-shadow won't work.

If he can deliver the goods in person, for all to see, the resulting scandal would travel up into the highest reaches of the CDC, hitting executives who have served there for the past 10 years.

It could move higher into the Department of Health and Human Services, and even the Congress and the White House, present and past.

And then there are the vaccine manufacturers. They too would face very specific questions.

power outside the matrix

Having written on these matters for many years, I'm not under the delusion that major heavy hitters would do jail time.

But once the match is lit, you never know what will happen.

The CDC has insisted, time after time, that they've proved vaccines have nothing to do with autism.

But out in the land of the Web, there are thousands and thousands of people who know better and can speak and write the truth.

It's up to him now.

If as reported, he feels great shame and remorse for covering up the damning data and contributing to much human harm and damage, he has an option.

He can pull himself together, say his name, say what he knows, down to the last detail, and say who at the CDC insisted that lies be told.

He can burn down all those lies.

He can break through and acquaint the public with what it's like to hear the truth from a government-agency employee.

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/do-we-have-a-medical-edward-snowden/
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

QuoteThe Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is an independent expert advisory committee of the United Kingdom Department of Health. JCVI was established, in 1963, "To advise the Secretaries of State for Health, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on matters relating to communicable diseases, preventable and potentially preventable through immunisation." The advisory body makes recommendations to the British government concerning vaccination schedules and vaccine safety.

Under the Health Protection (Vaccination) Regulations 2009, Her Majesty's Government has enacted provisions which enable the JCVI to unilaterally dictate the policies which must be implemented by the Secretary of State, after non-binding consultations with the Committee on the Safety of Medicines:

Obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure implementation of JCVI recommendations

2. (1) This regulation applies where the JCVI makes a recommendation which meets the conditions set out in paragraph (2).

(2) Those conditions are that the recommendation must—

(a)relate to new provision for vaccination under a national vaccination programme or to changes to existing provision under such a programme;

(b)be made by the JCVI (and not therefore a sub-committee of the JCVI);

(c)be in response to a question referred to the JCVI by the Secretary of State;

(d)be based on an assessment which demonstrates cost-effectiveness; and

(e)not relate to vaccination in respect of travel or occupational health.

(3) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the recommendation of the JCVI is implemented.

(4) Paragraph (3) ceases to apply in relation to a recommendation where the JCVI withdraws that recommendation.

The draft minutes for a JCVI committee meeting, published in February 2009, disclosed that the new status granted it by Health Minister Dawn Primarolo by an executive order in January that year, seemed designed to tie up with unmentioned provisions in the new National Health Service Constitution. According to the JCVI minutes, the new NHS constitution states:

"You have the right to receive the vaccinations that the Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisation recommend that you should receive under an NHS provided national immunisation programme."

And:

'You should participate in important public health programmes such as vaccination."

The minutes also state:

"The JCVI was pleased the recommendations of the committee would have the force of law behind it. The committee asked for clarification on the constitution including what exactly 'right' meant with respect to the right of a child to receive a vaccine when their parents were opposed to vaccination and how the constitution affected the recommendations of the JCVI with respect to legal challenge."

However, Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, from the Neural Dynamics Research Group, Dept. of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, published the following document in March 2011, which emphatically demonstrates that the JCVI has full knowledge that:

1. The vaccines administered by the NHS don't work.
2. They cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent.
3. They are a grave hazard to children.

Despite this, the JCVI proceeded with their long-term goal to impose a policy of mandatory vaccination upon the people of Britain. The serious allegations made in the document are summarised under the heading "Assertions" on page 2:

"In summary, the transcripts of the JCVI/DH meetings from the period from 1983 to 2010 appear to show that:

1) Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines;

2) Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;

3) On multiple occasions requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI's official advices on immunisations;

4) Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies;

5) Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits;

6) Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted;

7) Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues;

8 Deliberately took advantage of parents' trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage;

Notably, all of these actions appear to violate the JCVI's own Code of Practice." http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@ab/documents/digitalasset/dh_115363.pdf

The above referenced Code of Practice states on page 4:

"5 The JCVI is a statutory advisory committee. It is a Standing Advisory Body established under section 250 of the National Health Service Act 2006 by the NHS (Standing Advisory Committees) Order 1981 (SI 1981/597). That order specified that it is constituted for the purpose of advising on 'The provision of vaccination and immunisation services being facilities for the prevention of illness.'

6 The JCVI's terms of reference as defined in legislation are:

"To advise the Secretary of State for Health and Welsh Ministers on matters relating to the provision of vaccination and immunisation services, being facilities for the prevention of illness. The Committee must advise the Secretary of State for Health and Welsh Ministers on matters relating to vaccination and immunisation as the Committee considers appropriate and on any questions referred to it by the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers. In particular, under the provisions of the Health Protection (Vaccination) Regulations 2009 which implements the NHS Constitution in England, upon request of the Secretary of State,the JCVI must make recommendations relating to new provision for vaccination (other than vaccination relating to travel or occupational health) under a national vaccination programme or to changes to existing provision under such a programme, that are based on an assessment which demonstrates cost-effectiveness.

The Committee may also provide advice to Scottish and Northern Irish ministers."

The damning evidence cited in the 45 page report by Dr. Tomljenovic is concluded with the following paragraph:

"In conclusion, by apparently prioritizing vaccination policy over vaccine safety, the JCVI, the DH and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) may have shown a disregard for the safety of children. Through selective data reporting, the JCVI in conjunction with the DH, has promulgated information relating to vaccine safety that may be inaccurate and potentially misleading, thereby making it impossible for the parents to make a fully informed consent regarding vaccination. Furthermore, by 1) apparently misleading patients about the true risks of adverse reactions as to gain their consent for the administration of the treatment and 2) seemingly siding with vaccine manufacturers rather than public health interests, the JCVI and the CSM appear to have signally failed their fiduciary duty to protect individuals from vaccines of questionable safety. If these provisional conclusions are indeed correct, then the information presented here may help us in understanding the UK government's and the JCVI's official position on vaccine damage, that is, one of persistent denial."

In other words; the evidence cited entirely supports the allegation that individuals representing Her Majesty's Government, the Department of Health, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines and the JCVI have conspired to commit genocide against our children. If this isn't enough to make your blood boil with righteous rage, please ask somebody to check you still have a pulse.

http://self-realisation.com/grand-illusions/lethal-injections-damning-evidence-of-genocide-against-children/
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted