www.naturalnews.com

British government policy on measles vaccination for children has changed for no discernible reason notes Christina England, writing on vactruth.com, citing an internal document from 1968.

The document, titled "Notes On the Use and Storage of Measles Vaccine (Live Attenuated) for Routine Vaccines," clearly states in Section 7 that the vaccine should not be given to children under the age of nine months old. According to the paper's authors, the presence of maternal antibodies in the blood of such children interferes with the action of the vaccine, making it ineffective. Instead, the government recommended vaccination at the age of two after vaccination for diptheria, polio, tetanus and whooping cough.

England contrasts this with the ongoing push for earlier measles vaccination, most recently highlighted with a study that found almost no maternal antibodies present in children's bodies by the age of six months.

She also draws attention to Section 6 of the government document, which acknowledges that "mild febrile reactions and transient rashes may be expected to follow the administration of the vaccine in a substantial proportion of cases" but that "the Committee on Safety of Drugs ... does not however, wish to receive reports of mild febrile reactions and rashes associated with the use of this vaccine."

Section 8 then goes on to recommend that in order to reduce the risk of adverse effects, "an interval of three to four weeks should normally be allowed to elapse between the administration of measles vaccine and any other vaccine, whichever is given first."

Yet today, the vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella are given simultaneously, in the form of the MMR shot.

"How safe is the MMR vaccine?" England writes. "The drug company that makes the MMR vaccine publishes an extensive list of warnings, contraindications, and adverse reactions associated with this triple shot. ... Afflictions affecting nearly every body system -- blood, lymphatic, digestive, cardiovascular, immune, nervous, respiratory, and sensory -- have been reported."

Source: www.naturalnews.com

Despite all the scare tactics, fear mongering, and pseudoscience about the alleged importance of being vaccinated, a new report from Statistics Canada has revealed that 60 percent of Canadians decided against getting an H1N1 influenza vaccine last year. Even the World Health Organization's (WHO) declaration of a stage 6 pandemic was not enough to convince most Canadians to get the shot.

According to the report, 74 percent of the people who refused the shot said they "did not think it was necessary," indicating a high level of distrust among the public towards federal and international authorities, even during supposed health emergencies. Other reasons for not getting the shot included "had not gotten around to it yet" and "fear".

"Many people don't think that they needed it, and that might help us understand how public health education campaigns could improve in the case of another pandemic," explained Heather Gilmour, a researcher in the analysis division of Statistics Canada.

But government-funded "public health" campaigns are exactly what most people seem to be ignoring these days. After all, the mainstream media continually repeated the mantras of federal health agencies about the dangers of swine flu and the importance of getting vaccinated, and people simply did not believe it.

As a case in point, the lowest vaccination rate in Canada was in Ontario, where a universal vaccination campaign has existed for almost a decade. Of all the provinces and cities throughout Canada, health experts believed the H1N1 vaccination campaign would have fared better in Ontario than in most other places.

Vaccination rates were even lower in the U.S. where 80 percent of adults refused the H1N1 shot.

Source: www.naturalnews.com

Every year, right about this time, the Centers for Disease Control publishes its annual report indicating the need for vaccination against the flu (influenza). The number of "36,000" is the number of deaths the CDC usually promotes as the reason behind the need for mass vaccination against the seasonal flu. In its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the CDC has now admitted that the number of flu deaths has been exaggerated and is probably off by at least 1/3. This is mostly because the oft-touted 36,000 number comes from estimates from 1990-1999 when, the CDC admits, more severe strains of influenza A (H3N2) viruses were in circulation.²

Of course, as Mike Adams recently pointed out, the "seasonal" flu is not "seasonal" and the vaccine for it is usually not even for the right strain (let alone effective).¹

Even the new number is misleading, however. The 24,000 number being given now still includes deaths caused by pneumonia and other respiratory ailments only loosely associated with the flu. In fact, the vast majority of the CDC's estimates are these non-flu infections. The real number of flu-only deaths is harder to obtain, but seems to be in the 300 range (by CDC numbers).

Then consider that even the CDC's own numbers show that the vast majority (nearly 90%) of all flu-related deaths (including pneumonia) occur in those over age 65 and that less than 1% occur in those under the age of 19 (including children). Since no accounting of the health status of those who contract and ultimately die from flu-related symptoms is included in the analysis, we have to assume that the reason for most of the deaths occurring in the elderly is because those people are more likely, statistically, to be in poor health.

Then the obvious question should also be asked: why would the CDC revise these numbers down now, when the hype for flu vaccination is higher than it has been before?

The answer lies in the bonus materials of the MMWR. Included in these flu infection and death estimates, the CDC also makes sure to include the Swine Flu (H1N1) death estimates for 2009.³ This year, the usual flu shot includes, in many areas, the Swine Flu vaccine as well. This is the reason that vaccinations have been stopped in several countries, such as Australia, as numerous complications and even deaths have occurred after the double-dose vaccine is administered.⁴

Now the light begins to shine a little more brightly. Vast stocks of H1N1 vaccines were amassed during the World Health Organization's Swine Flu Scare of 2009 (soon to be re-visited on a TV station near you, no doubt). Those stocks were then, for the most part, likely flushed since the vaccines have a short shelf life. But Big Pharma still has the formulas and they've figured out how to combine the two flu vaccines together. Given that the CDC and many other governmental organizations were such good customers last year, they can likely peddle them again this year.

The 2010 Flu Season Extravaganza is about to begin and the release of the CDC's new numbers is usually the pre-show musical accompaniment as the curtain begins to rise. Grab the popcorn, sit back, and watch as the morbid comedy unfolds.

Source: www.avn.org.au

October is the month to acknowledge and honour those families whose loved ones have been injured by vaccines. These faceless (in many cases), nameless and numerous families are hurting and they need our help.

One of the ways we can assist them is by spreading the word that vaccine injuries are real and they are far more common then we have been led to believe.

If you are on facebook or twitter, please use the image below as your profile image for the month of October. Please spread the word amongst your own networks.

Bring the issue of vaccine injuries out into the public’s eye.

Source: www.naturalnews.com

As someone with a good deal of education in scientific thinking and the scientific method, I have put considerable effort into attempting to find any real scientific evidence backing the widespread use of influenza vaccines (flu season shots). Before learning about nutrition and holistic health, I was a computer software entrepreneur, and I have a considerable scientific background in areas such as astronomy, physics, human physiology, microbiology, genetics, anthropology and human psychology. One of my most-admired thought leaders is, in fact, the late physicist Richard Feynman.

I don't speak from a "scientific" point of view on NaturalNews very often because it's often a dry, boring presentation style. But I do know the difference between real science and junk science, and I find examples of junk science in both the "scientific" side of things as well as the "alternative" side of things.

For example, so-called "psychic surgery," as least in the way it has been popularized, is nothing more than clever sleight-of-hand where the surgeon palms some chicken gizzards and then pretends to pull diseased organs out of the abdominal cavity of some patient. The demonstrations I've seen on film are obvious quackery.

This statement by Bill Gates was not made with any hesitation, stuttering or other indication that it might have been a mistake. It appears to have been a deliberate, calculated part of a well developed and coherent presentation.

So what does it mean when Bill Gates says "if we do a really great job on new vaccines... we could lower [world population] by 10 or 15 percent?"

Clearly, this statement implies that vaccines are a method of population reduction. So is "health care," which all NaturalNews readers already know to be more of a "sick care" system that actually harms more people than it helps.

Perhaps that's the whole point of it. Given that vaccines technology help almost no one from a scientific point of view (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...), it raises the question: For what purpose are vaccines being so heavily pushed in the first place?

Bill Gates seems to be saying that one of the primary purposes is to reduce the global population as a mechanism by which we can reduce CO2 emissions. Once again, watch the video yourself to hear him say it in his own words:
http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A...

How can vaccines actually be used to reduce world population?

source: Douglas Report
by: Dr Douglas