Rates of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) continue to soar worldwide, with average prevalence estimated to be around 1.5% in developed countries. This estimate appears to be spot-on for Canada, which reported in March 2018 that autism (as of 2015) affected 1 in 66 children and youth (1.52%). These numbers place Canada among the “top ten” for autism among North American, European and Asian countries. ASD prevalence in 2015 varied among the seven regions, with the highest prevalence noted in the three provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador (1 in 57), Prince Edward Island (1 in 59) and Quebec (1 in 65). In comparison, prevalence was substantially lower in the Yukon territory (1 in 125). What might explain the variation in ASD prevalence within Canada’s borders? The NASS report does not offer any comments. However, an observant health practitioner in British Columbia has noticed a compelling parallel: autism prevalence is highest in the Canadian provinces that also have the highest vaccination coverage.
Last fall, when an exhausted new mom wanted time to consider vaccinations for her newborn, the infant was taken from her by the on-call pediatrician at a Portland hospital, who claimed "medical negligence." A caseworker from the state Department of Human Services, without a judicial review, had the child removed and allowed the attending nurse to vaccinate the child "with whatever they wanted to give" against the parents' permission. This happened even though Oregon allows parents to opt out of vaccinations. The mother was allowed to see her baby only for the purpose of nursing her and then escorted out of the hospital by police. Throughout this illegal nightmare, a DHS caseworker falsified reports and placed numerous roadblocks in the way of this family wanting to parent their newborn. Despite this, many Oregon families came forward to help them. With the aid of attorneys who offered to represent the family pro bono, the case was dismissed, with DHS conceding the woman was an excellent mother.
The global prevalence of allergic diseases is skyrocketing, affecting 30% to 40% of the world’s population. Allergic conditions include food allergies, anaphylaxis, asthma, eczema, allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis and reactions to drugs and insects. In the U.S., food allergies are widespread and are the most common cause of anaphylaxis in children. One in 13 American children—about two per classroom—has at least one food allergy, and food allergies increased by 50% from 1997 to 2011. Given that the hallmark of allergic disease is an altered immune response, it stands to reason that vaccines— which purposefully set out to “reprogram immunity”—are major contenders as allergy triggers. To grasp how the chain of vaccine-related events initiated roughly 30 years ago has bred today’s worldwide allergy epidemics, one has to understand that vaccines, by their very nature, induce an unnatural immune response. This property of vaccines is called “immunogenicity.”
Vaccine Injury Payouts: Taxpayers on the Hook for over $3.8 Billion as Vaccine Makers Rake in Profits
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) that went into effect in 1988 stipulated that vaccine manufacturers cannot be held liable for injuries or deaths that occur from use of their vaccines which are recommended for every child in America by the Centers for Disease Control. Vaccine makers are in a win-win position that no other industry in America enjoys. While profits go to vaccine companies, the monetary amounts awarded to the vaccine-injured from “vaccine court” are paid for by taxpayers. As vaccine makers aren’t held accountable for unsafe products intended for children, there’s no incentive for them to ensure the vaccines they manufacture are safe. Only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported and only 1/3 of the petitions are compensated – up to 99% of vaccine injuries go unreported. Total compensation paid for by taxpayers over the life of the program is over $3.8 billion.
Mandating Ineffective Vaccines Creates Public Health Crisis as Ineffective Vaccines Can Actually Enhance Disease
It’s clear that some vaccines don’t work as well as advertised. And yet, instead of first making a vaccine with better effectiveness, the solution is to use the force of law to make everyone get more shots of the failing vaccine. Even when significant vaccine failure rates for vaccines are acknowledged, the legislative solution remains fully supported. Concerns over the need for more effective vaccines are dismissed by apologetics pointing out that the current vaccines are better than nothing. The assumption is implicit: low immunity is better than no immunity. So, until a better vaccine comes along, accept the current shot at whatever level of immunity it provides. But the notion that any amount of antibodies is preferable to no antibodies at all, is dangerously wrong. The same exact antibodies that prevent disease at higher concentrations, can enhance the disease at lower concentrations.
It is quite common for pediatricians (and family doctors) to encounter parents who refuse one or more infant vaccines, most often due to safety concerns. These concerns also mean that pediatricians frequently get requests to modify or delay the vaccine schedule—nearly three-fifths (58%) of pediatricians reported such requests in a 2014 AAP survey. Rather than recognize the validity of parents’ safety concerns or admit to their own ambivalence about some of the newer vaccines, many pediatricians—nearly two in five according to some estimates—choose to boot uncooperative families out of their practice. A recent Medscape survey indicates that one of the main things that pediatricians dislike about their job is “dealing with difficult patients.” However, when pediatricians dismiss families whose only crime is the desire to make informed and individualized health care decisions on behalf of their children, the doctors are doing more than just unprofessionally dumping “difficult” patients—they also are protecting their bottom line. Dr. Bob Sears confirms that HMO plans use incentive practices, conducting year-end chart reviews and awarding large bonuses to pediatric practices that score well. Dr. Sears explains: “This bonus varies depending on the number of patients the doctor sees. One of the requirements for a patient’s chart to pass the test is that they are fully vaccinated. […] Such incentives…end up forcing a doctor to consider the financial implications of accepting patients who even just want to opt out of one vaccine. …Maybe a few such families wouldn’t make them fail the chart reviews, but if they have too many, there goes their year-end bonus.”
The incidence of childhood cancers has been steadily rising for several decades, to such an extent that cancers in young people now have their very own day in the limelight: International Childhood Cancer Day (February 15). For American children ages one through 14, cancer is the top disease-related cause of death, second only to accidents among all causes of childhood mortality. Leukemia and malignancies of the central nervous system are the most common types of childhood cancers. A recent opinion piece in The Hill points out that autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) have increased in lockstep with pediatric cancers. One in thirty-six (2.76%) children aged three-17 had an ASD diagnosis as of 2016, compared to one in 10,000 children in the 1970s. The parallel rise in the two conditions is not a fluke—environmental toxins are widely known to “initiate or aggravate various neurological disorders [and] carcinomas.” Although the National Cancer Institute (NCI) views environmental causes of childhood cancers as “difficult to identify,” one route of exposure to heavy metals and other toxic substances that begins prenatally and continues through adolescence is sitting in plain sight: the bloated U.S. vaccine schedule.
After the recent media uproar about the CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald’s resignation, which focused on the inappropriateness of her ownership in tobacco stock, the WMP team decided to investigate further. What we uncovered is new technology that utilizes tobacco leaves to produce vaccines in a much shorter time frame and clinical trials are already underway using this new technology to produce flu vaccines here in the US. So maybe Fitzgerald’s stocks had nothing to do with smoking tobacco cessation and everything to do with vaccine production?
Did you ever wonder what happened to Zika? You should, as our Government gave the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) $1.1 billion to study and develop a vaccine against Zika. Where did that money go and what happened to Zika? The CDC and the other Powers-That-Be should be asking for money to study why autism has increased at epidemic rates in our children. Instead of asking for billions to study a benign virus, perhaps we should be studying our children. President Trump, when he was campaigning for office, stated that he wanted to drain the swamp in Washington D.C. Let’s start draining the swamp by asking the CDC for the $1.1 billion dollars it wasted studying Zika and developing a vaccine that was never needed. Better yet, let’s demand to know how this money was spent.
In a brand new published study, the only science vouching for the “safety” of injected aluminum adjuvant has come under extreme criticism by heavyweight scientists. Dr. Robert J. Mitkus — author of the misleading aluminum safety study from 2011 — could change the autism debate forever by telling the truth. While you were (hopefully) enjoying the winter holidays, a study was published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry (it went online on December 27th) that could change the autism debate permanently. In fact, this new study placed the burden of proof for the safety of aluminum adjuvants used in vaccines so squarely on the shoulders of a lone FDA scientist — Dr. Robert J. Mitkus — that he alone could permanently change the outcome of the autism debate. Forever. I firmly believe that Dr. Robert J. Mitkus, a federal employee of the FDA, can help unravel the autism mess. All he needs to do is tell the truth. He needs to admit that these scientists are right, that the paper being relied upon to vouch for the safety of injected aluminum that he wrote in 2011 is inadequate, in light of much more recent science about aluminum adjuvant, and that the regulatory agencies need to heed the warnings of these scientists, as they explained so eloquently in their recently published paper. It’s time for honest scientists to step up and do the right thing.