The GOLDEN RULE

FLAWED RESEARCH:

The scientific mantra of vaccines is that they are safe and effective based on their research.  Their research is flawed and is a double standard from any other drug product studied.  The Gold Standard in research design is the double blinded, randomized controlled trial (RCT).

This means that people are split into 2 groups randomly and participants are given either the real thing or the fake thing being tested.  Then progress is charted on who gets better, who gets worse, and the like.  In theory there should be no bias as to reporting because the researchers don’t know who is in the placebo or the real intervention group.

How many vaccines have ever been studied in this manner?  ZERO!  The reason?  The researchers will say they cannot perform an RCT because it would be unethical to NOT give a child a vaccine because if that child dies of something that could have been prevented, then they don’t want to be responsible.  But if someone dies in their trials from taking their anti-depressants, it must be OK.

Hey drug companies, I will volunteer my child to be in the placebo group and compare him to the health and well being of those that have gotten all the recommended vaccines.  I’m sure I can gather a few hundred thousand more to be in the placebo group to create a large sample.

Instead of research to see safety and effectiveness, they instead see if the person builds anti-bodies to the antigen (the foreign invader) that is in the vaccine.  If antibodies are built, then it’s ‘safe and effective,’ or so they lead us to believe.  These studies are rarely, if ever done on kids younger than 4 years old.  How can you say it’s safe or effective for a baby if it’s never studied on a baby?

The 2 populations that have limited production of anti-bodies are infants and geriatrics, the 2 most heavily vaccinated populations.  If they can’t produce anti-bodies, then the vaccine would be pointless.  The whole premise of the vaccine is that you get injected with a foreign invader and you produce anti-bodies against it.  If you can’t produce anti-bodies well then what’s the use of injecting something to try and stimulate that reaction?

With kids, they don’t produce any antibodies until after age 6 months.  So why give a vaccine to anyone under the age of 6 months if they can’t produce antibodies.  Even if the whole vaccine theory really worked, it would be absolutely pointless to inject a baby of 6 months or less with a vaccine .  With a child’s immune system being very immature until age 2, the overload of 36 vaccines by the age of 18 months seems about as logical as drinking from a fire hydrant.

BOOSTER BUST:  

This is another aspect to the junk science of vaccines that exposes kids only 18 months old to 36 shots.  In their research of efficacy (how long something will work), they have no idea.  For this reason, we have multiple shots for multiple antigens.  Just take the latest HPV vaccine, the 3 series shot given to 12 year old girls to prevent HPV (an STD) which “MIGHT” but has never been confirmed, contribute to cervical cancer.

The manufacturer is only claiming 5 years of efficacy.  The problem with this is 2 fold.  1. The average age of cervical cancer is 50.  2. The shot is administered to 12 year old girls.
So we have a system pushing multiple shots (boosters) with a supposed 5 year efficacy timeline onto pre-teen girls, that was never tested on them, for a disease that has an average age of 50.  You give it a 12 year old and by the time she’s 17 the effects are worn off and then you claim you can prevent cervical cancer as they get older.  And I’m the quack for speaking out against vaccines.

So what are the efficacy rates of other vaccines?  Who knows?  They don’t study that, they assume and say we need more.  Once the vaccine is FDA approved and on the market, there’s no need to put any more money into it to study the effects.  Instead, we have a test tube of 4 million new subjects each and every year where they can just sit back, relax and never worry about a law suit because the government has protected them from any and all liability.

POLIO PUSHERS:

If I were to ask you what polio looks like, you probably have images of wheel chairs, crutches and kids limping around.  You would be absolutely correct…less than 0.5-2% of the time.  I want to make it clear that I am not downplaying the devastation of that 2%.  The point I’m making, hopefully it’s clear enough, is that I am making decisions based on statistics not emotion. As a parent, it’s very hard to separate the two sometimes.

In over 95% of the time, polio presents with the following symptoms: slight fever, malaise, headache, sore throat, and vomiting.  These start 3-5 days after exposure and recovery is 24-72 hours with a result of lifetime immunity.  Bet you never heard that from your pharma influenced media or doctor?

In fact, if you went to your doctor with those symptoms and you were told you had polio, you would leave his office laughing and write bad reviews on his Google Places page.
The remaining 3% was non-paralytic polio.  This presented for 2-10 days as high fever, severe headache, stiff neck, hyperesthesia/paresthesia in extremities and some asymmetrical limb weakness.  Take this list of symptoms to your doctor and you will probably get a label of meningitis, not polio.

But Dr. Kurt, the vaccine saved all those people from getting the paralyzing version.  If you look at the charts below, you will see that Polio was already massively decreasing prior to any vaccine ever introduced.  I would also like to add that the highest incidence came at a time our country was in despair (poor sanitation, hygiene, nutrition) during the depression.