In our society today, newborns are injected with loads of chemicals nearly as soon as they enter the world. In the name of “prevention”, we give them vaccines that we aren’t even sure are safe. As a matter of fact, in many cases, we know them to be unsafe. This is the case with the hepatitis B vaccine, approved for infants at birth but admittedly responsible for causing serious illness and even death.
The United States Court of Federal Claims sided with the estate of Tambra Harris, who died as a result of an auto-immune disease called systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The court awarded $475,000 following her death after finding the hepatitis vaccine caused her injury in the form of SLE. But this near-admittance of a cause-effect relationship between the vaccine and the illness and subsequent death isn’t enough. No, we still give the shot to babies.
So, what is hepatitis B and why are we told that it is so important that newborn infants are vaccinated against it? Hepatitis B is not pleasant and can be deadly. But newborns (and the vast majority of people at any age) aren’t at risk of contracting the disease. It’s spread by contact with bodily fluids, as in through unprotected sex or dirty needles.
The risks associated with the hepatitis B vaccine are far more pressing than the risk of contracting the disease, says Dr. Jane Orient of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). “For most children, the risk of a serious vaccine reaction may be 100 times greater than the risk of hepatitis B.”
Still, newborns are given the vaccine within moments of entering the world.
Considered by many to be crimes against infants, the hep-b vaccination, the vaccine has been linked to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), multiple sclerosis, and other autoimmune disorders. Many experts have questioned the prolific use of the vaccine since it stepped on the scene a few decades ago. What’s more, many parents are starting to question the need for the vaccine.
“In increasing numbers, parents across the country are contacting the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) to report opposition to regulations being enacted by state health department officials that legally require children to be injected with three doses of hepatitis B vaccine before being allowed to attend daycare, kindergarten, elementary school, high school or college,” National Vaccine Information Center reads.
As a parent, it is still your decision whether or not to vaccinate your child. There is plenty of research out there to help guide you in this decision. Don’t let your doctor or the people around you be your only source of information. Do your research and determine the best solution for your child’s long-term health.
See original here: http://naturalsociety.com/federal-court-admits-hepatitis-b-vaccine-fatal-auto-immune-disorder/
In many states the religious belief is still respect. But they still threaten you with not allowing the kids in school. If you know your rights, they tend to leave you alone.
(How) Is it possible to enroll kids in public school with out the “necessary” vaccinantion? Thank you.
“Federal Court Admits Hepatitis B Vaccine Caused Fatal Auto-Immune Disorder”. Well, here is one fact, the Court admits it. A study published September 2009 in Annals of Epidemiology also found that giving hepatitis B vaccine to infant boys more than tripled their risk for an autism spectrum disorder. This was doubly concerning because an earlier study by the same researcher group, using a different database, found the same result. Routine use of the hepatitis B vaccine for all newborns began in 1991, and according to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), operated jointly by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there were 36,788 officially reported adverse reactions to hepatitis B vaccines between 1992 and 2005. Of these, 14,800 were serious enough to cause hospitalization, life-threatening health events or permanent disabilities. Multiple sclerosis (MS) Guillain-Barre syndrome Bell’s Palsy
Diabetes Rheumatoid arthritis Lupus Idiopathic Thrombocytopenia purpura Convulsions and brain disorders such as encephalitis (brain swelling) and brain demyelination Immune dysfunction Visual and hearing impairments, including optic neuritis Pancreatitis Autism spectrum disorders.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/07/07/60-things-that-can-go-terribly-wrong-with-hepatitis-b-vaccination.aspx.
There is no, no evidence a young child should receive Hep-B vaccinations as is only contagious by swapping body fluids. If the young child has sex, you’ve got more problems then just a vaccine. What health agencies did not want you to know is that there are many other toxic additives still in vaccines, and one of them is aluminum.
Aluminum has not received the widespread media attention that mercury has, therefore many people don’t realize it’s a health risk. “Aluminum is not perceived, I believe, by the public as a dangerous metal. Therefore, we are in a much more comfortable wicket in terms of defending its presence in vaccines,” said Dr. John Clements, WHO vaccine advisor. Aluminum is not perceived
Notice the good Doctor used the word perceived. And buy the way, WHO is staffed (the Doctors)who formally word for Big Pharma.
I have 4 young children whom have ever been vaccinated. Perfectly healthy. Colds on last 2 days at the most. The school argued we should get the shots for the sake of other children. If the vaccines were that good they would not need to worry, correct? Doctors we saw would not sign the questionnaire stating there was research done for the necessity for such vaccines. There were no adverse reaction or permanent harm to our children should our children receive the vaccine(s). The Doctors who dispense this prophylactic should have reasonable know of the meds they prescribed. I just read an article the other day, I am not going to cite. I have already done this know its your turn to research. Big Pharma is paying Doctors to use their products. Little conflict of interest?
Government creating an environment of plausible deniability while protecting the cash cow, its an old old old corporate trick. Ironically, the corporates really run the government via lobbyist. Just check out the FDA board of governors, then read their resume…they all worked for who they are policing. And vice versa, you will see the boards of large corporations involved in health, that they were on the board of the FDA. How is that for an ugly orgy. Your assertions “it could just as easily…” is false, governments love spending money, especially when its yours (tax payer). Trillion dollars in deficit, you think they care about a million or two on litigation? You are half right, they really care about the billions in litigation coming down the pipe line if they let the truth comes to light. They are following the cost/benefit analysis of actuaries who calculate this, and the numbers say protect the billions of dollars in profits and avoid the possible billions (not this one particular case) in litigation. Dorit, you have markedly missed the mark. You want evidence of millions ready to file suit, how about going to the side effects that pharmaceutical companies readily have to published regarding their products then go to the rate of incidence of those side effect diseases in the population for each disease, then you will see by the probability of the shear numbers you will find your “millions”. Dorit, my grandpapy used to say, if you want to know the reason why, follow the money. It is the best piece of critical reason one could have, ESPECIALLY in a CAPITALISTIC society like the good old USA.
It is completely true that a consent decree does not negate the validity of the claims. But unlike what the article says, it does not confirm them either. All it means is the parties reached an agreement to settle. It could just as easily be because the government decided it is not worth the costs of litigating. And I would like some evidence of this alleged million people ready to file suit about the Hep B; to remind you, under the U.S. scheme, this claim would not be against the manufacturer but it would be under the compensation program.
All the consent decree was to stop what could have become a million people filing suits against the government and the big pharma. And a decree doesn’t necessarily imply innocence or negate other claims as being untrue or of no merit.
This is a 2011 consent decree. The court did not find for the plaintiff, but enters into records the parties’ agreement. We do not know why the government agreed to pay – whether it thought Harris had a case or that it’s too costly to try the case and the Harris’ already need to deal with enough. All it shows is that the government settled a case. The rest of the claims are equally unfounded.
And that is not the only vaccines we need to worry about. Just about all of them sums it up.
THE ILLEGAL GAINS ARE HERE TO STAY IN VACUOUS PUBLIC MEMORY?
Yep
WTF?