Secret government documents reveal vaccines to be a total hoax
Tuesday, January 08, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) If you have children, you are more than likely already aware of the official U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "Immunization Schedules," which today recommend an astounding 29 vaccines be given between birth and six years of age, including yearly flu shots, as well as another five to 16 vaccines between ages seven and 18 (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/). But a recent investigative report compiled by Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, Ph.D., uncovers more than 30 years of hidden government documents exposing these vaccine schedules as a complete hoax, not to mention the fraud of the vaccines themselves to provide any real protection against disease.
Though her paper focuses primarily on the British health system's elaborate cover-up of the dirty truth about its own national vaccination program, the tenets of the study's findings still apply to vaccination schedules in general, which are typically designed for the purpose of serving corporate interests rather than public health. Government authorities, it turns out, in an ongoing bid to satisfy the private goals of the vaccine industry, have deliberately covered up pertinent information about the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines from parents in order to maintain a high rate of vaccination compliance. And in the process, they have put countless millions of children at risk of serious side effects and death.
You can access Dr. Tomljenovic's full paper here:
Hiding the truth and covering up data to encourage vaccine compliance
Through several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Dr. Tomljenovic was able to obtain transcripts of private meetings that were held between the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), a so-called "independent expert advisory committee" that makes recommendations to the government about vaccine policy, and various British health ministers over the years. And after poring through this plethora of information, which had previously been veiled from public view, Dr. Tomljenovic made some disturbing discoveries.
"[T]he JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization) made continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates which they deemed were necessary for 'herd immunity,' a concept which ... does not rest on solid scientific evidence," explains Dr. Tomljenovic in the introduction to her paper.
"Official documents obtained from the U.K. Department of Health (DH) and the JCVI reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program."
These are some strong accusations, but the information Dr. Tomljenovic gathered speaks for itself. Not only did the JCVI routinely ignore questions of safety as they came up with regards to the ever-expanding vaccination schedule, but the group actively censored unfavorable data that shed a "negative" light on vaccines in order to maintain the illusion that vaccines are safe and effective. Beyond this, the JCVI regularly lied to both the public and government authorities about vaccine safety in order to ensure that people continued to vaccinate their kids.
You can access Dr. Tomljenovic's full paper here:
JCVI was fully aware of MMR vaccine dangers as early as 1989, but covered them up
Beginning on page three of her report, Dr. Tomljenovic begins outlining the sordid details of meetings held as early as 1981 where the JCVI clearly engaged in fraud, cover-up, and lies about vaccines to protect the vaccine industry, not children, from harm. Minutes from these meetings reveal that the JCVI actively tried to cover up severe side effects associated with common vaccines like measles and whooping cough (pertussis), both of which were clearly linked at the time to causing severe brain damage in a substantial percentage of the children that received them.
Of particular concern was how the JCVI handled unfavorable data on the controversial MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella. 10 years before Dr. Andrew Wakefield published his study on MMR in The Lancet, JCVI was already fully aware that the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) had identified a clear link between MMR and vaccine-induced meningitis and encephalitis. But rather than come forward with this information and call for further safety assessments on the vaccine, the JCVI instead censored this critical information from the public, and blatantly lied about the safety of MMR for years.
"The extent of the JCVI's concerns with the implications of scientific assessment of vaccine safety on vaccine policy explains why they were opposed to any long-term surveillance for severe neurological disorders following vaccination," writes Dr. Tomljenovic. "[I]nstead of re-evaluating the vaccination policy, at least until safety concerns were fully evaluated, the JCVI chose to support the existing policy based on incomplete evidence that was available at that time."
In other words, the JCVI was more concerned with protecting the reputation of the dangerous MMR vaccine, as well as many other questionable vaccines, than with protecting children from sustaining serious injuries as a result of getting the jabs. As far as the MMR vaccine is concerned, this critical piece of information not only reinforces the legitimacy of Dr. Wakefield's findings from 10 years later, which were illegitimately declared to be fraudulent by the establishment, but also illustrates just how painfully long this scam has been taking place.
Vaccine companies urged to manipulate data sheets, skew safety studies to promote vaccines
If this is not bad enough, Dr. Tomljenovic also drudged up copious amounts of information on the JCVI's longtime habit of encouraging vaccine companies to deliberately alter their data sheets in order to make dangerous and ineffective vaccines appear safe and effective, in accordance with their recommendations. When the JCVI's guidance contraindications for MMR, for instance, did not match those of the vaccine's manufacturer, JCVI apparently instructed the manufacturer to alter its data sheets to avoid "legal problems."
Similarly, the JCVI's official policy was to cherry-pick unreliable studies to support its own opinions on vaccines rather than rely on independent, scientifically-sound studies to make vaccine policy recommendations. Once again, the JCVI's position on the safety and effectiveness of MMR is an excellent example of this, as the group flat out ignored legitimate MMR studies in favor of industry-backed junk studies like the infamous 2005 Cochrane Review, which technically proves nothing about the alleged safety of MMR because the 31 studies it evaluated did not even meet the group's basic methodological criteria.
"Over the years, the JCVI has consistently promoted the MMR vaccine as safe, based on studies that have been proven to be either irrelevant, inconclusive, or methodologically questionable," explains Dr. Tomljenovic, adding that the JCVI routinely chose to rely on flawed epidemiological studies that only identified "association" rather than "causation," a rather ironic inaccuracy in light of how scrutinizing the establishment typically is of studies that contradict its own positions.
The eye-opening, 45-page paper goes on to explain how vaccine schedules were established through the calculated downplaying of vaccine safety concerns and the over-inflating of vaccine benefits; the promotion of dangerous new vaccines into the pediatric schedule through deception; the discouraging of vaccine safety follow-up studies; and the widespread brainwashing of the public through manipulation and scientific sleight-of-hand tricks.
Be sure to check out the complete study for yourself:
Sources for this article include:
[Colour fonts and bolding added.].
||Last Updated: Jan 3, 2013 - 12:30:53 AM
Catherine J. Frompovich, Contributor
After Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (PL99-660) in 1986, a postmarketing safety surveillance program called Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was set in place in 1990 to collect information about adverse events or side effects attributed to vaccines licensed and administered in the United States.
Since VAERS' inception, over 350,000 adverse reports have been reported. However, only 13% of all reports were considered serious reactions that included life-threatening conditions, permanent disability, or even death, according to GS Goldman and NZ Miller who investigated and statistically analyzed the VEARS database for the years 1990 to 2010.
Quoting from the Goldman-Miller paper “Relative trend in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990-2010" published in Human & Experimental Toxicology, 2012 31:1012 orginally published online 24 April, 2012. The online version of this article can be found at http://het.sagepub.com/content/31/10/1012
Some infants might be more likely to experience an adverse reaction due to biochemical or synergistic toxicity associated with concurrent administration of multiple vaccines. Yet, studies have not been conducted to determine the safety (or efficacy) of administering multiple vaccine doses during a single physician visit based on the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule.
The above statement, I think, most science-based individuals ought to find totally and outrageously appalling, i.e., no studies have been conducted to determined the safety or efficacy of administering up to nine (9) vaccines into a little 2, 4, or 6 month old baby, especially since medicine, Big Pharma, and the CDC/FDA consider themselves to be operating within the rudiments of science. How patently stupid is that? Furthermore, real science would be demanding such efficacy and safety studies be performed, analyzed, and vetted BEFORE automatically implementing such practices based solely on ‘convenience’ for parents.
It must be noted that in 1990 children received a total of 15 doses of vaccines in their first year of life, whereas by 2007, 26 vaccines were CDC-prescribed for a child’s first year of life. The vaccines that infants would receive in combination at one visit include polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and pneumococcal for a total of eight (8) vaccine doses—never tested for safety and efficacy.
In 2011 Goldman and Miller published another study stating that among developed nations, “infant mortality increased with an increase in the number of vaccine doses.” 
Furthermore, researcher G Delong published a 2011 paper wherein he reported that “the higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher the prevalence of autism or speech and language impairment.” 
Another 2011 research study by Oestergaard MZ, et al. found that infants who received the Hepatitis B vaccine either as a newborn or as a neonate were predisposed to more hospitalizations and deaths than older infants. 
Goldman and Miller also state in their current paper that there are seven previously published studies giving evidence of correlation between the Hepatitis B vaccine and serious adverse reactions, which include pediatric multiple sclerosis.
Currently, Goldman and Miller found
Cases that specified either hospitalization or death were identified among infants, defined as children aged less than 1 year, for whom reports were filed in the VAERS database from 1990 through the end of 2010.
The study’s authors downloaded 327,331 VAERS case reports of which they statistically analyzed 298,614 case reports of individuals aged less than 100 years. In their report they explain why they used that number of cases. Of the 298,614 cases 13.1% or 39,082 were infant cases. Of that number, 99.3% or 38,801 infant cases were reported as receiving fewer than 9 vaccine doses concurrently and were available for analyses, which showed 6,279 hospitalizations for children less than one year old and 1,881 deaths. The number of deaths reported occurred as follows:
1,623 deaths in children ages 0.0 year to less than 0.5 year of age or less than six (6) months old out of 26,408 case reports or 6.1%
258 deaths in children ages 0.5 year to 0.9 year of age or less than eleven (11) months old out of 12,393 case reports or 2.1%
What was the gender distribution relating to those deaths?
1,133 were males: 984 under six (6) months old and 149 under eleven (11) months old
723 were females: 617 under six (6) months old and 106 under eleven (11) months old
25 case reports had no gender designation
The damning part about this information is that the VAERS database reports probably represent only the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to reporting vaccine adverse events. To illustrate what I mean, former FDA Commissioner David Kessler said, “Only about one percent of serious events are reported.” OMG!
Back in August of 2012, I published the article A Parent’s Guide: What to do if your child dies after vaccination, which parents and legal guardians may find helpful, available at
Because of the numerous industrial-type chemicals, antigens, neurotoxins, preservatives, stabilizers, and inactivating chemicals, e.g., formaldehyde/Formalin, glutaraldehyde, and polyoxyethylene, combined in each vaccine thereby causing cumulative toxic buildup, it’s incomprehensible why medical science does not perform safety and efficacy studies on multi-valent vaccines; that the CDC/FDA do not mandate those studies be performed; or why Congress, who gave vaccine makers carte blanche protecting them from being liable for damage from vaccines, doesn’t require safety and efficacy studies on multiple vaccine injections at one time. Or, perhaps the EPA or even OSHA should become involved because of all the chemicals used in making vaccines.
Goldman and Miller’s current study of the VAERS reporting system validates such studies are needed without delay. What every healthcare consumer ought to be asking is whether CDC/FDA really are remiss in their charters to protect the public’s health, especially infants and children, when they encourage and mandate Frankenstein-like vaccination mandates as public health policy. What parent would put formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum or any of vaccines’ toxic chemicals into his or her child, especially those from 6 to 9 vaccines at one time?
Furthermore, parents ought to be seriously concerned why the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently supported the World Health Organization’s (WHO) claim that mercury [Hg] ought to remain in vaccines. For confirmation of that, please see the December 17, 2012 AAP release “AAP Endorses WHO Statement on Thimerosal in Vaccines” , when on the FDA’s current [12/29/12] website  this appears:
As a precautionary measure, the Public Health Service (including the FDA, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued two Joint Statements, urging vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines as soon as possible (CDC 1999) and (CDC 2000). The U.S. Public Health Service agencies have collaborated with various investigators to initiate further studies to better understand any possible health effects from exposure to thimerosal in vaccines. [CJF Emphasis added]
Note: Mercury in Thimerosal is 49.6% ethyl mercury. It also should be noted that the toxicity of ethyl mercury is NOT well studied. Interesting? For those who want to know more about the mercury in vaccines cover-up, I heartily suggest reading The Simpsonwood Conference: Mercury-Autism Coverup! by Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=188274776746 , which my co-editor and I included in our January 2011 monograph, Vaccines & Vaccinations: The Need For Congressional Investigation.
CDC/FDA and AAP need to support factual science and biochemistry about mercury in any form. Mercury in any form still is Hg!
Quoting from the link below,
It [Hg] may cause headaches, trouble sleeping, personality change, memory loss, irritability, indecisiveness and loss of intelligence.
Perchance, do any of the problems mercury can cause resemble anything on the Autism Spectrum Disorder syndrome?
MedicineNet.com’s website about mercury mentions that Thimerosal [49.6% Hg] is only in flu vaccines. So why mandate children 6 months and older AND pregnant women with growing fetuses receive the flu shot? Prenatal advice is given about eating fish containing mercury during pregnancy because mercury could affect the developing fetus. And a flu shot’s mercury doesn’t? What kind of cockamamie science or pseudo science is that?
Big Pharma’s world of vaccinology would come crashing down like a house of cards if medicine had to retract its position on mercury in vaccines. That’s probably why pseudo science will prevail regarding vaccines, especially in light of the Simpsonwood meeting in June 2000, out of which came the following:
After the Simpsonwood gathering, the CDC also instructed the Institute of Medicine (IOM), i.e., the National Academy of Sciences, to produce a new study with contrived results: no correlation between thimerosal and brain disorders. According to Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee in January 2001, the CDC 'wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe.' In fact, 'we are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect' of thimerosal. In transcripts of the meeting, the committee’s chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton, predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was 'inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation' between thimerosal and autism. Apparently, that was what 'Walt wants'—a reference to Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the CDC’s National Immunization Program. by Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute [CJF emphasis added ] http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=188274776746
Perhaps that’s why VAERS will be nothing more than a database no one takes seriously.
 Miller NZ and Gold GS. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Hum Exp Toxicol 2011; 30(9): 1420-1428.
 Delong G. A positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population. J Toxicol Environ Health A 2011; 74(14): 903-916.
 Oestergaard MZ, Inoue M, Yoshida S, Mahanani WR, Gore FM, Cousens S, et al. Neonatal mortality levels for 193 countries in 2009 with trends since 1990: a systematic analysis of progress, projections, and priorities. PLoS Med 2011; 8(8): e1001080.
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies.Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.
Catherine’s latest book, A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.
Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008).
[Colour fonts and bolding added.].