If Truth Be Told About Unreported Vaccine Adverse Reactions: Do VAERS Reports Represent Demographic Statistical Actuality?

By Catherine J. Frompovich

Ever since the 1980s I have been researching vaccine data, but I cannot seem to figure out – for the life of me – how many actual adverse reactions experienced by vaccinees are reported to VAERS, since there are so many data variables, plus estimated figures bandied around, as you will soon learn.

The vaccine adverse reactions reporting conundrum apparently gained some legitimacy with this report:

VAERS MAY ACCOUNT FOR ONLY 1 PERCENT OF ACTUAL VACCINE INJURIES [Nov 2, 2015]

But how many children have vaccine reactions every year? Is it really only one in 110,000 or one in a million who are left permanently disabled after vaccination? Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler [1] observed in 1993 that less than 1 percent of doctors report adverse events following prescription drug use. There have been estimates that perhaps less than 5 or 10 percent of doctors report hospitalizations, injuries, deaths, or other serious health problems following vaccination. The 1986 Vaccine Injury Act contained no legal sanctions for not reporting; doctors can refuse to report and suffer no consequences.

Even so, each year about 12,000 reports are made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System; parents as well as doctors can make those reports. However, if that number represents only 10 percent of what is actually occurring, then the actual number may be 120,000 vaccine-adverse events. If doctors report vaccine reactions as infrequently as Dr. Kessler said they report prescription-drug reactions, and the number 12,000 is only 1 percent of the actual total, then the real number may be 1.2 million vaccine-adverse events annually.   [1] [CJF emphasis]

— Barbara Loe Fisher, Co-founder & President  National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)

Now here’s where things can get somewhat “squirrelly,” I think.  In checking CDC/FDA and the feds websites, I find varying explanations and numbers for estimated yearly VAERS reports.

Since 1990VAERS has received over 123,000 reports as of June 14, 2014
[VAERS-1 Form used from 1990 to June 30, 2017]
Source: FDA

In recent years VAERS has received approximately 40,000 U.S. reports annually.  
[VAERS Form 2.0 was implemented June 30, 2017.]
Source: Federal Register

However by law, healthcare professionals must Report Vaccine Reactions!  

And still, MDs, nurses and others, who should know their legal responsibilities as licensed healthcare professionals, DO NOT file vaccine damage reports with VAERS!  What are they hiding, or whom are they protecting?

On the other hand, anyone who has experienced an adverse event after receiving a vaccine CAN and SHOULD file the proper VAERS report (Form 2.0) at this HHS website Report an Adverse Event.

Now here’s an example of where I feel almost like a cat chasing its tail in trying to figure out VAERS.

I downloaded this data set, which apparently is a sophisticated Excel spreadsheet.  Columns A to G have these designations:

VAERS_ID RECVDATE STATE AGE_YRS CAGE_YR CAGE_MO SEX

However, scrolling down the left column designated A “VAERS ID,” the numbering system seems to be an ongoing sequence that started with ID No. 794156 on 1/1/2019 and ends with ID No. 801633 as of sometime in February 2019.  Would that mean that 7745 adverse reports were filed from January 1, 2019 to sometime in February 2019?

If that be the case, then how does the above numbering system fit in with the following reported data?

A. Since 1990VAERS has received over 123,000 reports as of June 14, 2014
B. In recent years [2015 to 2019?] VAERS has received approximately 40,000 U.S. reports annually
C. 40,000 reports a year times 4 years (2015-2018) equals 160,000 to be added to 123,000 (2014) equals 283,000 reports; so why begin Jan. 1, 2019 with 794,156?
D. If 7745 adverse reports were filed from January 1, 2019 to sometime in February 2019,then what explains ID No. 801633 as of sometime in February 2019?
E. If 7745 reports represent approximately one-eighth (1/8) of 2019 calendar days, can we hypothesize 61960 total VAERS reports for all of 2019—not 40,000?
F. The above numbering system seems to indicate, and represent, more adverse events reported since the mandatory increases in the CDC vaccine schedule.

If I am correct in my assumptions about the VAERS ID numbering system, there probably is substantial proof that 801633 Adverse Events Reports had been filed to sometime in February 2019 since 1990.

Those numbers indicate there ARE adverse reaction vaccine problems, which the CDC and FDA do not seem to acknowledge, all while cataloging VAERS as a post-marketing product-efficacy surveillance system.

And even more alarming, I think, when taking the above ‘logic’ a step further to factor into consideration Dr. Kessler’s estimation of less than 1% being reported, what could be the “real life” number of experiences by consumers to February 2019?  Good question?

My calculator figured 80 million 163 thousand 3 hundred probable adverse reactions may have occurred from 1990 to sometime in February 2019, which could [or should] have been reported to VAERS.

Sadly, consumers probably may never know the accurate data sets until there is total transparency at every level of vaccine consensus science and adverse events reporting.

Reference:

[1] https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/588757

Source

If Truth Be Told About Cowpox & Smallpox Diseases Scientific Differences That Caused A Pharmaceutical Fairytale

By Catherine J. Frompovich

“I hope that someday the practice of producing cowpox in human beings will spread over the world – when that day comes, there will be no more smallpox. – Edward Jenner


Holy cow!

Edward Jenner did not know cowpox and smallpox were/are two different organisms or diseases!

And the pharmaceutical industry followed charlatan Edward Jenner into a perpetuity of high profits and criminal scientific misdemeanors for which Big Pharma and vaccine manufacturers are not being held accountable within product liability law, at least in the USA, due to the actions of the U.S. Congress in 1986 when it passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA).

By 1985, vaccine manufacturers had difficulty obtaining liability insurance. … Because of this, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) in 1986, establishing a federal no-fault system to compensate victims of injury caused by mandated vaccines.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act]

[Who says vaccines are safe, if Congress in 1986 recognized injuries caused by vaccines? Don’t people have the inherent right to protect themselves and their children from known vaccine adverse health effects, especially neurotoxins and toxic chemicals?]

Cowpox Definition

noun

a viral disease of cows’ udders which, when contracted by humans through contact, resembles mild smallpox, and was the basis of the first smallpox vaccines.

[Dictionary online]

Cowpox is a viral skin infection caused by the cowpox or catpox virus. This is a member of the Orthopoxvirus family, which includes the variola virus that causes smallpox. Cowpox is similar to but much milder than the highly contagious and sometimes deadly smallpox disease.

[https://www.dermnetnz.org/topics/cowpox/]

What is the treatment for cowpox?

However, studies in mice suggest a role for the viral DNA polymerase inhibitor cidofovir, given parenterally, topically, or in an aerosolized form, for disseminated cases of cowpox. Patients should be made aware that their lesions are potentially infectious, but no person-to-person transmission has been reported. Jun 19, 2018

[https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1131886-treatment]

Medical Care

Because cowpox is generally a self-limited disease, treatment is largely supportive. Patients often do not feel well and require bed rest or, occasionally, hospitalization.

[https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1131886-treatment]

What is the treatment of cowpox?

There is no cure for cowpox, but the disease is self-limiting. The human immune response is sufficient to control the infections on its own. The lesions heal by themselves within 6–12 weeks. Often patients are left with scars at the site of the healed pox lesions.

Patients may feel unwell and require bed rest and supportive therapy. Wound dressings or bandages may be applied to lesions to prevent spread to other sites and potentially to other people.

Patients with underlying skin conditions, such as atopic dermatitis, may be at greater risk of generalised cowpox.

[https://www.dermnetnz.org/topics/cowpox/]

How many people have died from cowpox?

The scourge of the world. An estimated 300 million people died from smallpox in the 20th century alone. This virulent disease, which kills a third of those it infects, is known to have co-existed with human beings for thousands of years. Feb 17, 2011

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/smallpox_01.shtml]

The question above refers to cowpox, but the data “spinmiesters” cite smallpox deaths!

What kind of transparency, plus scientific accuracy, is that in reporting medical and health information over the Internet? Doesn’t that represent an example of real fake news?

Vaccine MIS-information probably is the primary example of fake news on the Internet!

I believe I can make that statement unequivocally, as the above discussion of cowpox not being smallpox clearly demonstrates, plus my researching vaccine science data since the 1980s!

In England, the Royal Society For Public Health, Vision and Practice published online its 36-page report “Moving The Needle, Promoting vaccination uptake across the life course,” which clearly sets out the projected long-range plans for all the vaccines coming from Big Pharma.

In the above Report’s section titled “Responsibility of the press,” we find this:

The press, therefore, has a responsibility to share accurate, evidence-based information about vaccinations, given the vital role vaccinations play in improving and maintaining the health of the population. [Pg. 32] [CJF emphasis everywhere]

No truer words spoken, but definitely not practiced by mainstream media!

There are thousands of peer-reviewed articles regarding the dangers and downfalls of vaccines, their ingredients and harms [vaccine package inserts Contraindications, Adverse Events] etc. published online, and

Is there an obvious Conclusion?

If Jenner’s ignorance, misinformation and ‘scientific’ lie(s) have been promoted since the 1700s, isn’t it time to confess the mistake; correct the science; and re-establish scientific integrity within medicine and pharmacology?

Remember, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels.

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, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 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)

Source

Scientists From Around the World Call for Immediate Halt to “Genetically Altered Children”

By Derrick Broze

Scientists and ethicists from around the world are warning of the consequences of failing to implement a temporary global halt on gene editing of human eggs, embryos, and sperm. 

In a letter to the journal Nature, 18 scientists and ethicists from seven countries called for a global moratorium on the type of gene editing that can result in genetically altered babies. The letter was prompted by a 2018 announcement by a Chinese scientist declaring the birth of the world’s first gene-edited twin babies.

The 18 signatories of this call include scientists and ethicists who are citizens of 7 countries. Many of us have been involved in the gene-editing field by developing and applying the technology, organizing and speaking at international summits, serving on national advisory committees and studying the ethical issues raised.

Fears of “designer babies” have been on the rise in the last decade as scientists move closer to producing embryos which have been genetically modified to produce children with specific, desirable characteristics. This vision was once the exclusive domain of Hollywood movies like Gattaca, but now, a future where parents are able to pick and choose exactly how their child’s genes express themselves is eerily close.

Specifically, the group is calling for a moratorium on germline cells—in this case egg or sperm cells—that can then be inherited and “could have permanent and possibly harmful effects on the species.”

“To begin with, there should be a fixed period during which no clinical uses of germline editing whatsoever are allowed,” the scientists write. “As well as allowing for discussions about the technical, scientific, medical, societal, ethical and moral issues that must be considered before germline editing is permitted, this period would provide time to establish an international framework.”

From that point on, individual nations will choose their own paths. The scientists predict that some nations may choose to continue a moratorium indefinitely or a permanent ban. They also call on any nation that chooses to allow specific applications of germline editing to first give public notice and engage in an “international consideration about the wisdom of doing so.” The group also calls for a “transparent evaluation” to determine if germline editing is justified and for a nation to gain a “broad societal consensus” over the appropriateness of the editing.

“No clinical application of germline editing should be considered unless its long-term biological consequences are sufficiently understood—both for individuals and for the human species,” the group urges.

In a separate letter to the journal Nature, Dr. Francis Collins, director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), stated that the NIH strongly agrees that a moratorium should begin immediately and last until nations commit to international rules to determine “whether and under what conditions such research should ever proceed.”

“This is a crucial moment in the history of science: a new technology offers the potential to rewrite the script of human life. We think that human gene editing for reproductive purposes carries very serious consequences—social, ethical, philosophical and theological,” Collins wrote. “Such great consequences deserve deep reflection. A substantive debate about benefits and risks that provides opportunities for multiple segments of the world’s diverse population to take part has not yet happened. Societies, after those deeper discussions, might decide this is a line that should not be crossed. It would be unwise and unethical for the scientific community to foreclose that possibility.”

In a response to both letters, the editors of Nature released an editorial describing their viewpoint. “Whether or not a moratorium receives more widespread support, several things need to be done to ensure that germline gene-editing studies, done for the purposes of research only, are on a safe and sensible path,” the editors wrote. The editors called for all proposals and basic research studies using gene-editing tools in human embryos to be deposited in an open registry. Certain countries will have lax laws which could be exploited by “would-be mavericks” and thus there is a need for global laws to prevent and penalize unacceptable research, the editors state.

The right decisions on human germline modification can be reached only through frank and open discussion, followed by swift action. With so much at stake, that must happen now.

This article was sourced from The Mind Unleashed.

Source

Free Speech and Shutting Down the Vaccine Debate

By Truthstream Media

This is a much bigger issue beyond whether or not you are “pro” or “anti” vaccines.

It’s a larger situation about free speech in a society where the public square has gone digital, and major corporations, political leaders, and so-called scientific “experts” are going to start deciding what people are allowed to see, discuss, and know.

If you don’t share this one, it’s probably going to get buried. Note — Just in case, our backup channel on Vimeo is here: https://vimeo.com/truthstreammedia



Aaron & Melissa Dykes are the founders of TruthstreamMedia.com, Subscribe to them on YouTube, like on Facebook, follow on Twitter, support on Patreon.

Watch their mini-documentary Obsolete here and their full-length documentary THE MINDS OF MEN here.

Also Read: Amazon Joins Big Tech Assault on Anti-Vaccine Information

Source