Source: www.naturalnews.com

I'm always amused by the purchasing process of electronics or appliances at big box stores. On one hand, as their sales associate calmly explains to you, whatever product you're buying is such high quality that you'll be extremely satisfied with your purchase. But on the other hand, it's also such a complete piece of junk that you'd be smart to add on a two-year extended warranty so that when the gizmo breaks five seconds after you open the box, you can get a replacement for free.

The CDC and the vaccine industry are fronting a similar bit of contradictory logic. "Our vaccines work so well that they offer almost total immunity from the flu," they claim. And yet somehow they also work so poorly that they "wear off" after a year and require you to be re-vaccinated annually.

This is The Great Big Lie of the vaccine industry: The lie that says you have be re-vaccinated each and every year, often with the exact same strains you were vaccinated with the previous year. The coming winter flu vaccines for 2011, for example, are being manufactured with the same strains as the 2010 flu vaccines.

But if vaccines work so amazingly well as the CDC and the vaccine industry (fraudulently) suggests, then why do you need the same shot year after year?

Well, according to the CDC, "Vaccines wear off."

Vaccines wear off, they say

Yep, that's their cover story. The vaccines "wear off."

But hold on a minute. There's something fishy about this. Because human antibodies normally last a lifetime, remember? That's why you don't get the chicken pox over and over again; because the first time you got the chicken pox as a kid, your body created chicken pox antibodies and those antibodies last a lifetime.

Thus, your immune system offers you lifetime immunity from the chicken pox.

The vaccine industry false tries to claim its vaccines work exactly the same way: They cause the body to produce antibodies against a certain viral strain. But there's something you're not being told about vaccines: They don't really produce the same quality and strength of antibodies that your own body would produce from a natural infection and recovery. That's why the vaccines "wear off" and leave you with zero protection from the very strains they inoculate you against.

In other words, vaccines don't work as advertised. And that's why the vaccine industry has to keep pushing the same vaccine strains year after year. Because, think about it: If vaccines actually worked as intended, they would give you lifetime immunity against whatever strains you were injected with, right? And yet the CDC now openly admits vaccines don't offer that at all:

"This year's flu shot will be a duplicate of last year's because the same flu strains are still circulating," reports the Associated Press in an article about the CDC. "Government health officials are urging nearly everyone to get this fall's flu shot. They say a vaccine's protection can fade significantly after several months." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110527...)

Vaccine protection fades after a few months? Well then, vaccines must not actually cause the body to react with producing its own antibodies, because those antibodies, we're told, offer lifetime immunity.

Another way you can confirm this yourself is by remembering your history. Remember when the Europeans came to America centuries ago and killed off masses of American Indians by accidentally giving them smallpox? Well, if the Indians died of smallpox, why didn't the Europeans die of smallpox? (There were no vaccines in the 1600's and 1700's.) The answer is because the Europeans had already been exposed and built up lifetime immunity to the disease.

Thus, the reason the European invaders of North America did not die from smallpox wasn't because they were vaccinated; it was because they had already been exposed to the disease and had built up active immunity against it (by producing their own antibodies which last a lifetime). Thus, the Europeans could be exposed to smallpox over and over again with no symptoms of infection. They were effectively "immune" to smallpox, in exactly the same way a human being living today becomes immune to a winter flu strain by first being exposed to the full strength strain (in the wild) and then building up their own antibodies in an automatic adaptive response.

But don't expect the vaccine industry to educate anyone on how infectious disease and antibodies really work. They're too busy selling annual flu shots to bother with scientific facts.

The flu vaccine manufacturing machine is on high output

"Five vaccine manufacturers announced plans to make between 166 million and 173 million doses for the coming season," says the same article mentioned above. That's the highest vaccine manufacturing output for the USA in the history of vaccines.

With all these 170 million (or so) vaccines sitting around by the time the winter rolls around, the CDC is obviously going to have to kick its propaganda and fear mongering into high gear to convince people to buy all these vaccines. This is going to be doubly difficult considering the inconvenient fact that all the people who got vaccinated last year already received vaccines against these same viral strains!

So, in other words, the CDC must now convince 170 million people that last year's vaccine was such a complete failure that they need the exact same vaccines this year -- and somehow this year's vaccine will work better even though it's exactly the same as last year's vaccine. How will they accomplish this?

It's simple: They won't talk much about the fact that this year's flu vaccine is identical to last year's flu vaccine. They'll just repeat their blatant lies about vaccines offering near-100 percent protection against the flu -- an insinuation so blatantly false that the FTC should actually charge the vaccine manufacturers with false advertising.

And the great unknowing masses will, of course, line up to be injected yet again with the same cocktail of viral strains and vaccine preservatives that didn't work for them last year! Because the hilarious truth about flu vaccines is that most of the people who get sick from the flu each year are the same people who were vaccinated against the flu!

Yep, it's the devastating secret of the vaccine industry: Most of the flu victims each year are precisely the same people who took the flu shots. And now you know why that is so -- because the flu vaccine shots simply don't work. Even if you do believe they work at first, even the CDC openly admits -- on the record -- that "flu vaccines stop working after several months."

They fade out like a set of old batteries, in other words. And that right there is proof that flu vaccines don't produce a true antibody response.

The great vaccine marketing con: Annual vaccine shots

The CDC is now engaged in the marketing of annual vaccination of the entire population. That's the game, you see: Convince people they need an annual flu shot just to stay healthy. It's a complete marketing con, of course, but it's necessary to keep the flu vaccine profit machine humming along each winter.

In doing this, the CDC is now running a criminal marketing racket to falsely push vaccines as the solution even though flu vaccines simply don't work. For every 100 people vaccinated against the winter flu, by the way, 99 of them will experience no difference whatsoever in their flu outcomes. Even using the industry's own best evidence, flu vaccines are no more than one percent effective at actually preventing the flu (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...) -- and that's only during the first few months before they "fade out."

One of the CDC's own vaccine scientists -- a man who received millions of dollars in grant money from the CDC -- was recently indicted by a federal grand jury for money laundering and fraud (http://www.naturalnews.com/032216_T...). Check out the NaturalNews diagram called Poul Thorsen's Alleged Web of Fraud to see the complete web of deceit under which the key players of the vaccine fraud industry operate: http://www.naturalnews.com/files/We...

The truth is that the CDC abandoned real science long ago and is now engaged almost entirely in infectious disease fear mongering and the wholesale prostitution of itself to the vaccine industry. The CDC has become to the vaccine industry what infomercial guru Tony Little is to exercise equipment. This is an agency that now functions as little more than the marketing branch of the vaccine giants.

As part of that total prostitution of itself to the vaccine makers, last year the CDC even announced that virtually everyone should get annual flu vaccine shots, including pregnant women!

You can immunize yourself against the winter flu

But here's the other dirty little secret the CDC absolutely does not want you to know: If you skip the vaccine, boost your vitamin D intake, and encounter the flu naturally, you will build your own lifetime antibodies against the infection.

Got that? So the best way to immunize yourself against a particular strain of the winter flu is to dose up on vitamin D, boost your nutritional intake, get healthy and then just go out into the world and stop worrying about exposing yourself to the flu. You'll pick it up somewhere, and if your immune system is functioning well with high levels of vitamin D (that's the vitamin that "activates" your immune response to flu infections), your body will build its own antibodies, and you won't even know it! You will have what's called a "symptomless infection" and won't even know your body successfully fought off the viral invader.

Better yet, because you were exposed to the real viral strain in the wild (and not some weakened strain in a flu vaccine shot), your body will maintain lifetime immunity to that viral strain. And isn't that the goal of immunization in the first place?

Immunizing yourself, you see, works far better than relying on the vaccine industry to immunize you through some artificial means (an injection). Their immunization, it turns out, simply doesn't work reliably. And that's why the sad sellouts and prostitutes of the vaccine industry have to keep pushing their same lame flu shots year after year, with no improvements and virtually zero effectiveness.

And the same ignorant consumers line up year after year to get the same failed flu shots year after year... then they wonder why they still get sick year after year.

Do the math, folks. This is not rocket science. If flu shots worked as well as your own immune response to a natural infection, then you would only need one shot in your entire life for any given viral flu strain. But that, of course, would be bad for vaccine profits. They need suckers to believe in annual flu shots so they can keep raking in the big bucks year after year.

Source: www.naturalnews.com

The highly controversial and potentially lethal anthrax vaccine may be tested on US children if the federal government gets its way. Although adverse event reports related to the vaccine among adult test subjects have included hospitalization, disability and even death, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is exploring the possibility of testing the vaccine on children.

Nicole Lurie, the assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the DHHS, recently requested that the National Biodefense Science Board submit an evaluation of safety issues related to testing the anthrax vaccine on children. The DHHS frames the possible testing as an issue of biodefense preparedness. However, the possibility of pediatric testing of the vaccine both ignores the vaccine's dangers, and raises the specter of class- and/or race-based selection of medical test subjects which has haunted US health agencies for over a century.

Even in the months in 2001 when letters containing anthrax were mailed to several congressional leaders, heightening national fears during the post-9/11 period, Bill First, a physician and then-Senate Majority Leader, urged caution in use of the anthrax vaccine. He told CNN: "There are very real and potentially serious side effects from the vaccine and anyone who elects to receive the vaccine needs to be made aware of that. I do not recommend widespread inoculation. There are too many side effects and if there is limited chance of exposure- the side effects would far outweigh any potential advantage."

A 2007 report by the CDC, along with the Vaccine Healthcare Centers of the Department of Defense and the watchdog group Government Accountability estimated that "between 1 and 2 percent" of vaccinated military personnel, experienced "severe adverse events, which could result in disability or death."

If a vaccine with this kind of reputation is to be tested on children, one has to wonder which children. It is fairly certain those young test subjects won't be the offspring of high-ranking government officials or corporate vice presidents and CEOs.

The history of medical testing carries a taint of racism, classism and opportunism, as health officials select those with less education and fewer choices to be unwitting guinea pigs in medical experiments supposedly in the name of scientific advancement.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist or history professor to have heard of the notorious 40-year long Tuskegee experiments in which the US Public Health Service withheld syphilis treatment from infected black men to measure the effects of the disease.

Source: www.news.com.au

THIS time last year Saba Button was a beautiful, thriving 11-month-old. She'd just taken her first three steps, and spoken her first three words. She was perfect in almost every way.

Her mum and dad, Kirsten and Mick, chose to follow the Health Department recommendation and give Saba the flu vaccination.

What they thought was a simple and responsible decision has - in the blink of an eye - destroyed the health and happiness of this very decent family.

Saba had her vaccination at lunchtime, by dinner time she was softly moaning in her cot, with a raging temperature of 40.2 degrees. Life was limping out of her.

Saba then began a desperate fight. After two days in ICU at PMH her family was called in to say goodbye. Kirsten and Mick refused to give up. So did Saba.

She survived but she's now a very different child. Saba has an acquired brain injury from prolonged seizures, it's a global injury, she is no longer able to walk or talk, or eat by mouth.

What makes this story so desperately sad is her parents believe the injury to their daughter could have been prevented.

In the days leading up to Saba's flu jab, 111 other Perth children had suffered adverse reactions.

Source:www.naturalnews.com

Health authorities around the country are set on further restricting vaccine exemption rights, probably due to the growing awareness of vaccine problems and increase in exemptions around the country. Currently, proposed laws in Washington State and New Jersey would limit the ability of residents in those states to refuse vaccines. If not stopped, those new restrictions will soon become law and pave the way for further restrictions across the country. Predictably, anti-vaccine activists are opposing these bills, but with state health departments and well-financed pharmaceutical lobbyists on the other side, is a grass roots effort likely to succeed? Hopefully so, but if the proposed laws are shown to raise significant Constitutional issues, anti-vaccine activists may find that they have a "David" advantage against the "Goliath" opposition.

The importance of this critical strategic point cannot be overstated. A bill can die a quick death if it is unconstitutional, regardless of how many constituents or special interest groups support it. It may take thousands of activists to successfully oppose legislation supported by state health authorities and the pharmaceutical industry, but it may take only one activist revealing serious Constitutional flaws to stop the bill dead in its tracks. So, let's take a look at some of the arguments, as these may apply to future attempts to restrict vaccine exemptions in other states in the future, as well as to these two states now.

In Washington State, SB 5005 would require that forms for all exemptions, whether religious, medical or philosophical, to "include a statement signed by a health care practitioner, that the parent or guardian has been informed of the benefits and risks of the immunization."¹ Aside from failing the common sense test - health care practitioners should not be the gatekeepers of non-medical exemptions - this bill may also be unconstitutional with regard to religious exemptions.

The U.S. Constitution does not require states to offer religious exemptions, but when they do, those laws must conform to the boundaries of the First Amendment's 'free exercise' and 'establishment' clauses. But since the Constitution doesn't mention vaccines or exemptions, how do we know what these clauses really mean with regard to vaccine exemptions? When the application of law to a specific set of facts is unclear, we must look to legal precedent from the courts for guidance.

Federal courts have held that the only two requirements needed to invoke First Amendment protection for religious exemptions is that the beliefs be religious in nature and that they be sincerely held.² The boundaries of those two requirements are defined by legal precedent as well, but for SB 5005 purposes, the point is that this bill would add an additional requirement, above and beyond what the First Amendment requires. Since federal law is a higher authority than state law, a state law arguably can't add requirements over and above what is required by the federal, First Amendment, as set forth in federal legal precedent.³ So, Washington State's SB 5005 may violate the First Amendment, and if passed, it would be vulnerable to attack and subject to being stricken accordingly.

The proposed NJ bill, ACR157,⁴ raises other Constitutional concerns. It would require parents to provide a "written statement . . . explaining how the administration of the vaccine conflicts with the bona fide religious tenets or practice," whereas currently, New Jersey parents need only provide a signed, written statement that the vaccines interfere with the free exercise of the pupil's religious rights. The new wording raises Constitutional concerns in that the words 'tenets' and 'practices' could reasonably be interpreted to require membership in an organized religion, and in any event exclude someone whose religious beliefs, but not a tenet or practice, were violated by the vaccine requirements.

However, federal legal precedent tells us that the First Amendment rights may apply whether or not applicants are members of an organized religion, and regardless of which church they belong to if they are;⁵ and that one need only have the above-cited sincerely held, religious belief - not a violated tenet or practice. So, if the New Jersey bill becomes law, it would arguably violate the First Amendment, and the new law would be subject to attack and to being stricken accordingly. This risk is a strong deterrent to legislative support!

To be perfectly fair, the bill might pass Constitutional scrutiny if it was simply amended to add the word 'beliefs' to the phrase "tenets and practices," since, unfortunately, the Constitution does not prohibit a state from scrutinizing religious exemption claims. But this bill raises other Constitutional concerns. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's Lemon case,⁶ a law violates the First Amendment establishment clause if it fails any one or more of these tests: 1) The government action must have a secular purpose, 2) it must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and 3) it must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. While minimizing exemptions may be deemed a secular purpose, and the primary effect may not be that of advancing or inhibiting religion (vs. presumably protecting the public health), it is inevitable that at least some local authorities will become involved in excessive entanglement with religion when they are tasked with deciding which religious beliefs qualify and which don't.

For one thing, what is a sincerely held religious belief to one person may not always look like that to someone else; for another, some who fear unvaccinated persons may reject those with sincerely held religious beliefs improperly. This is likely why many states' religious exemption laws are worded in such a way as to prohibit the state from scrutinizing religious exemption claims (and that fact, too, supports those who oppose this New Jersey bill).

A third Constitutional issue with this New Jersey bill concerns giving local authorities the responsibility for assessing religious beliefs. This would inevitably result in an inconsistent application of the standards that exemption applicants must meet. Some of the people scrutinizing religious exemption applications will want to exclude all the applicants they can because they fear that exempt children put others at risk (but if vaccines work, how could that be?), or will wrongfully include or exclude some applicants because they fail to understand the legal boundaries of what qualifies for the exemption despite having good intentions. The bottom line is, if there is not a clear standard that is applied consistently throughout the state, that may result in 'equal protection' violations under the 14th Amendment. So, there are serious implementation problems with this bill. For all of these reasons, the New Jersey bill should not be passed.

One final argument against bills aimed at restricting access to vaccine exemptions in general is the lack of the need to do so, even under mainstream views of vaccines and infectious disease. All states have authority to require vaccines or to quarantine the unvaccinated during outbreaks and emergencies. So, there is no need to rush through legislation to close the exemption gap; state health authorities already have the authority they need to deal with any genuine infectious disease problems. Indeed, to the contrary, there is a moral and ethical imperative to expand exemption rights, as noted in the recent article, "Vaccine philosophical exemptions: A moral and ethical imperative" at http://www.naturalnews.com/Author_A... and powerful evidence that states already have excessive, overreaching authority in emergencies, as explained in the "Swine Flu Review" at http://www.pandemicresponseproject.....

The above is only an introduction to the issues discussed. To better understand your vaccine exemption and waiver rights and for documents providing legislative support to pro-vaccine-choice activists around the country, see the Vaccine Rights website at www.vaccinerights.com, or contact the author.

Source: www.naturalnews.com

Every year around the first of October we find ourselves plunged into another flu season. Health organizations ramp up communications; plastic signs appear outside of neighborhood pharmacies; and more than half of the US population typically decides to be vaccinated. In December of 2010, however, the flu vaccine formulated specifically for children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years old was found to be causing a higher than normal incidence of febrile seizures.

Various health websites characterize a febrile seizure as a 'convulsion' or a 'loss of consciousness' that accompanies a fever. In general, the eyes roll back and the individual becomes rigid, twitches and shakes; they do not respond or seem to hear and do not remember the episode.

Despite valiant efforts by the medical establishment to downplay incidences of febrile seizure, calling them 'harmless', 'common' or even 'normal' and assuring us that there is no permanent neurological damage (phew!), anyone who has ever witnessed one, particularly in a young child, will tell you that it's terrifying.

The makers of this year's flu vaccine for children, Sanofi-Aventis, have admitted to a higher than normal incidence of febrile seizures after administration of their vaccine but still insist that no causal link has been made. The uptick in seizures was detected by an early-warning system of the CDC and the FDA, called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), that is designed to track vaccine safety.

While no final conclusions have been made public yet, it is safe to say that the bias of health authorities leans heavily towards vaccination, seeking to legitimize the wide use of vaccines and protect the reputations of companies that make them. So likely, we will never know the un-spun truth.

For the moment we can only add the possibility of a febrile seizure to a growing list of concerns and possible side effects of vaccination. And when you do, you may just find yourself with the needed argument to forgo one more elective, ineffective vaccine in favor of a bit more sunshine and good 'ole vitamin D.

Source: www.naturalnews.com

Are routine vaccines dangerous for children? Dr Suzanne Humphries, a practicing nephrologist (kidney physician) says the vaccine industry isn't giving people both sides of the story, and parents need to get informed before subjecting their children to vaccines that can potentially cause serious harm or even death.

It's all being revealed in a one-hour NaturalNews interview with Dr Suzanne Humphries. You can view the entire interview on NaturalNews.TV at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=BAE7F...

In that interview, you'll hear Dr Humphries talk about:

• Why she became concerned about vaccines after noticing kidney failure in patients who recently received vaccines.

• Why vaccines are often contaminated with unknown viral strains, and why the vaccine industry has covered up known vaccine contamination (and knowingly sold contaminated vaccines to be used on the public).

• Why the entire vaccine industry needs to be questioned, and why a new effort is needed to scientifically assess whether vaccines are really safe or effective.

• Why the fairy tale that "vaccines eradicated polio" is a false mythology -- here's what really happened.

• Why the "smallpox" vaccine has never been proven to be effective against smallpox at all.

• Why vaccine industry research is extremely flimsy and ignores rigorous standards of scientific evidence. (Using improper placebos designed to minimize the appearance of side effects, for example.)

• Why the vaccine industry won't test vaccines versus unvaccinated children (they're terrified of the results).

• Why children caught up in outbreaks of measles are often the very same children who were vaccinated against measles!

• Why vaccines may actually suppress the immune system and cause increased vulnerability to future infections.

• Why many childhood infections such as chicken pox are perfectly natural, normal and even HEALTHY.

• Why the outlandish and unscientific behavior of the vaccine industry is causing an erosion of credibility across all "science."

• Why many of the people engaged in pushing vaccines have financial ties to vaccine companies.

• Why the vaccine industry is utterly unwilling to tolerate anyone asking intelligent questions about the safety of vaccines.

Hear all this and more in this exclusive interview with Dr Suzanne Humphries:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=BAE7F...

Dr Humphries is one of the signers of the groundbreaking new document just released by the International Medical Council on Vaccination, called VACCINES: Get the Full Story: http://www.naturalnews.com/Vaccines...

Stay tuned to NaturalNews.com for yet more interviews and breaking news about vaccines in the days ahead. We will air an interview with Dr Sherri Tenpenny tomorrow, followed by an exclusive video interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield the following day.

If you haven't yet seen the video from Cryshame, which shows an autistic child damaged by vaccines, you can view it here: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5659B...

Note, also, that nearly all those who push vaccines are also pushers of GMOs. Both poisons are being forced upon the world in the name of "science," but both are actually based on extreme distortions of science and driven by for-profit corporate agendas.

www.naturalnews.com

Bill Gates is promoting a plan to use wireless technology to register every newborn on the planet in a vaccine database.

In a keynote address to the mHealth Summit, which focuses on using mobile technology to improve health care, Gates said that improving survival rates among children under the age of 5 would benefit not just individual families, but societies and the planet as a whole.

"The key thing, the most important fact that people should know and make sure other people know: As you save children under 5, that is the thing that reduces population growth," he said. "That sounds paradoxical. The fact is that within a decade of improving health outcomes, parents decide to have less children."

The number of children who die before their fifth birthday has already dropped from 20 million in 1960 to 8.5 million today, a statistic Gates attributes mostly to vaccination.

"About one-third [of that improvement] is by increasing income," Gates said. "The majority has been through vaccines. Vaccines will be the key. If you could register every birth on a cell phone -- get fingerprints, get a location -- then you could [set up] systems to make sure the immunizations happen."

Gates suggested using cell phones to record each birth and send the information, including biometric identifiers, to a central database. This database would then send reminders to parents' phones when it was time to come in for vaccines or other treatments. He said a prime location to implement such programs would be northern Nigeria or northern India, where vaccination rates are less than 50 percent.

Acknowledging that registering every single birth has never been done before, Gates called for "1,000 new ideas" to "blossom" in order to make it happen.

Such ideas could conceivably involve using the GPS devices inside phones to physically track parents who do not bring their children in for vaccines.

Gates also called for use of mobile technology to implement more continuous monitoring of vaccine supply chains.