In a highly-publicized scientific report (1), the CDC is now making a future-projection claim that immunization programs in the USA will prevent 732,000 deaths over the lifetimes of people born from 1994 - 2013. In analyzing this, I'm going to set aside the fact that the CDC quite literally functions as the marketing branch of vaccine manufacturers and that . Let's pretend the CDC has no bias and analyze this report with the kind of scrutiny the mainstream media almost never exercises when it comes to immunization science.
In this report, the CDC says, "vaccination will prevent an estimated 322 million illnesses, 21 million hospitalizations, and 732,000 deaths over the course of their lifetimes."
Let's start with the assumption that the claims are true. But compared to what?
Are we supposed to believe that vaccines and vaccines alone are the only way to protect yourself from infectious disease? Are we to really believe that in our world of stunning scientific advancements, with billions of dollars in federal funding and generations of scientists studying disease, that no other prevention strategy other than vaccines has ever been identified or discovered? The ignorance of such a one-dimensional position is staggering, smacking of scientific illiteracy. If the universe of the CDC's strategies for preventing infectious disease is limited to just one intervention, then it's not a universe at all. Skeptics are forced to ask: Why doesn't the CDC simultaneously promote other options that also help prevent infectious disease, such as vitamin D?
Vitamin D far more effective, affordable and safer than vaccines in many casesIt turns out that vitamin D supplementation would almost certainly have a far greater positive impact than the vaccine claims presented by the CDC in their paper. Vitamin D supplementation, if widely promoted by governments, could be a key strategy in preventing millions of deaths, tens of millions of hospitalizations and saving the economy several trillion dollars in societal costs.
How do we know that? Because nearly the entire population is vitamin D deficient, and the science is irrefutable that vitamin D deficiency promotes cancer, diabetes, heart disease, schizophrenia, bone disorders, kidney disorders, obesity, neurological disorders and much more. Source: The National Library of Medicine's collection of Vitamin D scientific studies on various diseases at:
Importantly, vitamin D also radically boosts the body's resistance to the very infectious diseases most frequently targeted by vaccines: mumps, measles, influenza and so on. As I wrote in
A clinical trial led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima and conducted by the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective at halting influenza infections in children. The trial appears in the March, 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Am J Clin Nutr (March 10, 2010). doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.29094). [According to the conclusion], vitamin D appears to be 800% more effective than vaccines at preventing influenza infections in children.
At the same time, vitamin D is remarkably inexpensive to produce and distribute, and it has virtually no health risks whatsoever -- unlike vaccines which .
So why isn't the CDC studying the amazing long-term effects of providing vitamin D supplements to children? Because drug companies don't sell vitamin D. They sell vaccines.
The CDC focuses on what makes money rather than what works best.
This is what happens when you have a medical system that prioritizes profits over public health. If the CDC were really interested in maximizing public health, it would obviously not limit its "universe" of recommended prevention strategies to just one thing: vaccines.
To see an extraordinary collection of evidence on how vitamin D works "miracles" for human health, by the way,website.
CDC lies by omissionThe CDC doesn't want you to be aware of any of the information contained in this thoughtful article. This CDC report may, in fact, be completely accurate in the specific statements it offers, but it is "lying by omission." The Big Lie of the report is found in what you are NOT being told. For example: What if vitamin D could save one million children while vaccines only save 700,00? Then that means the CDC's willful ignorance of vitamin D is resulting in the preventable deaths of 300,000 people!
By withholding information from the public on other strategies for preventing infectious disease, the CDC is engaged in medical negligence that undoubtedly costs many people their lives. This is true even if vaccines work as the CDC claims they do. For example:
What if vaccines + vitamin D could save 1.2 million people instead of just 700,000? What if vitamin D enhanced the efficacy of vaccines by making them work better? It turns out this may be precisely the case, as flu shots have been scientifically shown to fail among those who already have weakened immune systems (often from vitamin D deficiency). This is one reason .
So why doesn't the CDC recommend vaccines plus vitamin D supplementation instead of vaccines alone?
Because, again, the CDC is not truly interested in the best solutions for the public. It is interested in promoting a very narrow, for-profit agenda that enriches vaccine manufacturers who are future employers of CDC scientists and bureaucrats. The CDC is lying by omission, and the mainstream media drives this home by using intellectual slurs against anyone who dares to even ask intelligent, thoughtful and skeptical questions about the entire issue of immunizations or vaccines. (If skepticism is not allowed in a particular body of "science," then it isn't a science at all. It's a dogma.)
The war on those who question the CDC's one-dimensional promotion of vaccines is a war against scientific skeptics.
One of the most balanced and thoughtful answers on this subject, by the way, is offered by Dr. Mark Hyman, one of the best integrative doctors writing and speaking today. In , Dr. Hyman explains:
For certain populations, I do think a flu shot is necessary.For people who are debilitated, people with respiratory or developmental problems, and for people who are prone to getting very sick and could die from the flu, I think it's worth getting the shot.It may not work that well, but it provides some benefit to those populations.
But for anyone else, I don't think the flu shot is necessary.I know this goes against government recommendations, and I know there's a lot of controversy about it.But I encourage you to do your own homework.Read the blog that I wrote that extensively documents the science behind why the flu shots don't work as well as we think they do, and why they might be harmful.
Here's one dirty little secret about the flu shot: it contains mercury.Most of the flu shots that are administered in the US are from multi-dose vials, which contain multiple flu shots in one little vial.To preserve it, they add mercury or Thimerosal.A cumulative dose of Thimerosal over your lifetime could have a negative impact on your health, because mercury is a known toxin.It causes immune problems and neurologic problems like dementia, memory issues, and other issues. So, if you're going to get the flu shot, make sure it comes from a single-dose vial, which doesn't have Thimerosal in it.
The huge scientific gap in all pro-vaccine argumentsThere is a gross, gaping scientific chasm in all pro-vaccine arguments: the entire focus is on the "vaccines / no vaccines" question as if infectious disease is a single-factor outcome and vaccines are the only choice available to you.
Nonsense! Such an argument is a Fool's Choice. It's as if the CDC wants the entire population to believe vaccines are the one and only way to prevent infectious disease (while making sure you don't explore anything else).
That's junk science from the outset. Let's suppose for argument's sake that vaccines are hugely effective at saving the lives of children. If so, then why stop there? Why not enhance the effectiveness of childhood immunity with nutrition? Why not also promote immune-boosting herbs? Or the avoidance of food-based toxins like lead, cadmium, mercury and other heavy metals that compromise immune function?
Zinc has enormously impressive efficacy at preventing infectious disease. Many Traditional Chinese Medicine herbs are fantastic at preventing the spread of respiratory diseases. And of course vitamin D itself is very nearly a modern medical miracle when it comes to boosting immune function and attacking invading pathogens.
So why does the CDC almost never discuss these things? If the CDC really wanted to save the most children -- and not just promote the most vaccines -- wouldn't it recommend other things that could work, too? Why does the CDC's sole message incessantly focus on vaccines as if nothing else exists in the world of health, nutrition and medicine?
Another enormous gap: vaccine injuries and adverse eventsThe CDC's argument that "vaccines will save 732,000 lives" is also based on the blatantly false assumption that vaccines have zero negative side effects or adverse events. To believe the 732,000 figure, you have to willfully ignore the entire history of vaccines, much of which the CDC has desperately tried to scrub from its website.
As an especially relevant example, it is factual history that polio vaccines heavily promoted by the CDC were contaminated with SV40 cancer viruses that infected millions of people with cancer viruses. That this took place is not in dispute; it is merely swept under the rug by the CDC.
You can read more about the true history of SV40 at the , which explains:
...known SV40 contaminated vaccines were injected into children up until 1963. In addition, it has been alleged that there have been SV40-contaminated batches of oral polio vaccine administered to some children until the end of the 1990's.
Natural News has also published the audio recording of Merck virologist Dr. Maurice Hilleman who, on tape, literally laughs hysterically when discussing all the cancer viruses hidden in vaccines.which includes him saying:
I think that vaccines have to be considered the bargain basement technology for the 20th century. ...I just think this virus will have some long term effects. And he said what? And I said "cancer". (laughter) I said Albert, you probably think I'm nuts, but I just have that feeling. Well in the mean time we had taken this virus and put it into monkeys and into hamsters. So we had this meeting and that was sort of the topic of the day and the jokes that were going around was that "gee, we would win the Olympics because the Russians would all be loaded down with tumors." (laughter)
In a highly unethical, irresponsible attempt to whitewash this true history, last year the CDC , engaging in a literal reenactment of the Orwellian Ministry of Truth which, in the novel 1984, routinely rewrote history books so that their "factual accounts" would be congruent with the present-day agendas of the political class.
The CDC doesn't want you to be aware of this history. Instead, they want you to focus on the number they give you -- 732,000 lives to be saved maybe in the future -- but not the number that's already historical fact: million of people infected with cancer viruses hidden in polio vaccines.
How many of those people eventually died of cancer, by the way? The CDC isn't keeping track and doesn't even want to acknowledge such a tragic mistake ever happened. But it would be intellectually negligent to be aware of the cancer epidemic affecting millions of Americans living today and not ask serious questions about how many of those people were injected with vaccines over the last few decades before SV40 was removed from vaccines.
It may very well be true that the mass vaccinations of the 1960's, 70's, 80's and 90's ended up causing tens of millions of cancer deaths in America. We'll never know, of course, because the CDC won't be opening that Pandora's Box of medical history, thank you very much.
The CDC's stage magic and sleight of handIn stage magic, this sort of technique is called sleight of hand. The magician gets the audience to focus on something in one hand while he slips another deck of cards (or a bird, a scarf, etc.) into his other hand. It's a technique of misdirection.
If the CDC weren't so incessantly engaged in medical misdirection, their proclamations about vaccine efficacy might be more believable. But because their propaganda is obviously so biased toward promoting high-profit vaccines while completely whitewashing any hint of risk or injury associated with vaccines, their "scientific" papers reek of dishonesty and bias.
A legitimate scientific paper would have discussed:
• The number of children harmed or killed by vaccines vs. the claimed 732,000 to be someday "saved" if predictions hold true. What is the NET lives saved after you subtract the fatalities and injuries? (Or are we really to pretend that number is zero?)
• The possible risk of harm from vaccine adjuvants and preservatives, all of which are known neurotoxins and include mercury, formaldehyde, MSG and aluminum.
• The comparison of vaccines versus other potential treatments which may be more efficacious, less risky or more affordable.
• The financial conflicts of interest which are routinely found in CDC scientists due to the "revolving door" arrangement whereby the most pro-vaccine CDC decision makers are offered lucrative jobs at vaccine companies. Case in point: .
But these points are of course never discussed. The CDC wants to pretend they are engaged in "science" even though they are really engaged in stage magic dressed up to look like science. And the CDC absolutely does not want anyone to realize there are alternatives to vaccines that are safer and more effective against many infectious diseases. In fact, it is a scientific truth that exposure of a healthy child (with healthy immune function) to a live infections (not a weakened virus) results in a stronger antibody response, thereby building stronger immunity against future exposures. Vaccine-induced immunity, it turns out, is a very weak form of immunity.
Perhaps a more accurate claim the CDC might make along these lines is that "the human immune system will save 50 million lives" (or whatever the number happens to be), and that the best approach to saving the most lives would be to enhance immune function and thereby make it more effective.
Final point: If vaccines are so great, then why not take the toxic ingredients out?Finally, if vaccines are such wonderful, miraculous things to be injected into children, then why do they still contain undeniably toxic ingredients?
The CDC openly lists these ingredients on its website. Theis not in dispute. Not even vaccine advocates deny this fact.
It is also not in dispute that these substances are extremely toxic to the human body. Mercury, for example, has no safe level of exposure via injection. To inject a child with any amount of mercury -- even a single microgram -- is highly unethical and irresponsible. "...there are no existing guidelines for safe exposure to ethylmercury, the metabolite of thimerosal," says National Toxicology Programs in its own documents.(2)
Until the potent toxins are removed from vaccines, neither the CDC nor vaccine makers have any moral authority whatsoever from which to argue they are "saving lives." Because it is a contradiction to claim you are saving lives when your treatments are also clearly harming lives due to the toxic effects of the ingredients. Or is it the CDC's official position that vaccines are MAGIC because the mercury in vaccines somehow doesn't count? Are we really to believe that the laws of physics and biochemistry are magically suspended in vaccines merely because the CDC says so? Such ideas are even more loony than believing in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. Are we next going to be told that mercury in vaccines is rendered inert because of the CDC's "power of intention" which magically transmutes mercury into gold or something?
As a research scientist who focuses on , I cannot simply dismiss the presence of mercury and other toxic elements in vaccines as irrelevant. To do so would be highly irresponsible, unscientific and even a form of medical malpractice. Yet the CDC does this every single day, using sleight of hand press releases in the hope that you will stay focused on the stilted numbers they put in front of your eyes while never remembering your child is being injected with toxic poisons used as vaccine additives.
If the CDC and the drug companies really wanted to win the vaccine wars, so to speak, all they would have to do is take the poisons out of the vaccines! If that really happened, most of the resistance to vaccines would fade away, and vaccines would be welcomed by a much larger segment of health-conscious consumers.
So why won't the CDC and drug companies remove mercury from flu shots? Why won't they remove aluminum, MSG and formaldehyde from other vaccines?
I honestly don't know. Your guess is as good as mine, but apparently these potent biological poisons are an important part of the vaccine recipe that must be kept in the formula at all costs.
If Dr. Maurice Hilleman were still alive today, he would probably still be laughing hysterically at how an entire population has been so easily convinced to inject their children with known, documented poisons under the guise of "immunizations." Is this really the best the CDC can come up with?
Sources for this article include
Originally posted at:http://www.naturalnews.com/044880_CDC_medical_negligence_infectious_disease.html
Health Ranger launches 'A Blueprint for Safer Vaccines' - calls for reforming 'barbaric' immunization technology
Vaccines suppress your brain! Vaccine-Induced Brain Damage Syndrome (VIBDS) mirrors cognitive impairment caused by chemotherapy (Chemo Brain)