Experimenting on Defenceless Babies

Mothers know their children better than any Doctor.
They have been close to them from the time of conception and their lives and the lives of their children are interdependent from that moment on.
When a mother who has given birth to a healthy child and nursed that child for months then suggests to Doctors that there is something seriously wrong then the Doctors should listen with great care.

When mothers link the newly seen health problems in their children with certain new incidents in their lives this is evidence which should not be ignored by a Medical Professional who may have seen the child for just a few minutes of its life.

But this is not what is happening in the UK today and some parents are so frightened for the health of their children that they are prepared to travel abroad to avoid the multiple vaccinations which the medical profession have proclaimed as safe.

Vaccinations such as the MMR vaccine intended to protect the child from measles, mumps and rubella (commonly known as German Measles) have been linked to the onset of Crohn's Disease and even to Autism.
The medical profession denies such links but they regulate their own work and their own decisions.
There may be an as yet unrecognised link between the presence of the immune disrupting pesticides in the child's body and the failure of the immune system to deal properly with the vaccine.
It is interesting to note that many of the reported adverse effects from the vaccine follow the second "booster" injections which indicates that the first vaccination failed to obtain the correct response.

Recently an 18 month old child suffered with what was believed to be Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP) about 2 weeks after vaccination.
The doctors at first apparently denied any connection with the vaccine but the mother searched the internet and found out more about the disease.
Now it seems the doctor is not so sure - but will it be reported as an adverse reaction to the vaccine?

Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura is a bleeding disorder resulting from a shortage of platelets in the blood which is why the child developed an apparent "bruising" under the skin.
There is a small risk of brain haemorrhage with associated headaches and dizziness.
The disease may also cause damage to the kidneys, brain and spinal cord and it results from the abnormal production of antibodies in the lymph nodes and spleen which destroy the platelets in the blood.
The cause of this immune disorder is unknown but is believed to be a complication of a viral infection because many people develop ITP after recovering from a minor viral illness, after exposure to radiation, or as a reaction to severe fever or some drugs.
It is a relatively rare disease affecting more women than men.
The symptoms can be skin bruising, purpura, recurrent nosebleeds, bleeding gums, gastrointestinal bleeding, and a rash which bleeds. Treatment in adults generally includes the use of steroids but in children the illness may not require any treatment but if the patient fails to respond to treatment the spleen may have to be removed and chemotherapy may be required.
Such complications may have serious effects on the child's life.

Meningitis is becoming more common in the young and there is also now a vaccine programme to counter this threat.
Unfortunately the vaccines available do not protect against all the strains now at large and so a child vaccinated by one type may well die as the result of infection by another more virulent strain.
Despite this the march towards mass vaccination continues apace and yet we still read reports that the vaccine itself has caused deaths amongst the young as the result of serious adverse reactions.

Parents are offered advice that the risk from the disease is far greater than the possible risk of the vaccine but is this really true?
Measles was always a common disease and parents hoped that their children would catch the disease when they were young so that they would have immunity for the rest of their lives.
In fact it is recognised that infants under 8 months old are rarely infected because of the immunity imparted to them by their mothers.
The complications of measles are rare and the disease was once very common throughout the world but the greatest risk is to children with an impaired immune system - or perhaps an immune system which is not yet fully functional and is already busy fighting another disease?
In such cases death can follow infection and some million deaths still occur annually across the world - but mostly in malnourished children whose immune systems are already compromised.
The measles vaccine does not always provide complete protection against infection but it does reduce the severity of the symptoms should a later infection arise.

Mumps is another disease of childhood for which serious complications are uncommon. Again this was a disease which parents hoped their children would get when they were young so as to avoid the known complications which could arise if the disease is caught in later life.
Teenage boys and adult males are at some risk because infection can very rarely result in infertility.
An occasional result of the infection is meningitis but recovery from this form is usually quick with no long-term effects.

Rubella is a viral infection which causes a trivial illness in both children and adults but the danger is to the foetus if a woman is affected in the early months of pregnancy.
If the virus affects the unborn child serious complications can result, known as rubella syndrome, if miscarriage does not occur.
The virus may cause the child to be born deaf, with heart disease, brain damage, visual defects or bone disorders and about one fifth may die in infancy. The children that live may remain infective for about a year.
Adult women who are vaccinated must avoid pregnancy for about three months but pregnant women may apparently be vaccinated and there may be treatment available to prevent damage to the unborn child.
There is apparently no risk to the unborn child of a woman who has had rubella in the past because her immune system will protect the foetus.
This is why the Rubella vaccine was introduced for school girls of child bearing age, usually between the ages of 10 and 14 years.

The combined Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine was introduced in the UK in 1988 after trials in countries such as the USA, and it is now routinely offered to all children at about 15 months of age.
"Offered" is perhaps the wrong word since incentive payments are reportedly paid to Doctors who are able to "persuade" at least 95% of the families in their care to have their children vaccinated.
Reports suggest that families who refuse have often found themselves struck of the Doctor's register. Quite an incentive to comply?

Clearly there is a danger to children with compromised immune systems since advice is that the vaccine should not be administered to children suffering from cancer, or allergic reactions, who are being treated with immunosuppressant drugs, or high dose steroids.

We therefore have a combined vaccine given to all children when their immune systems are not fully functional for what were common diseases with rare side effects. The side effects of the vaccine are admitted to be fever, rash and malaise some 5 - 10 days after injection with about one percent of children also developing selling of the glands just as occurs in mumps.
The Measles vaccine is admitted to be not entirely effective.
The Mumps vaccine is only a requirement to prevent possible, but not certain, damage to males in later life.
The Rubella vaccine is only required later in a girl's life to protect any unborn children she might wish to carry full term.
The Meningitis vaccine does not fully protect the child either.

The Hippocratic Oath declares that it is the Doctor's duty to work for the good of the patients and to do no harm, whether by deliberate intent or by administration of drugs or by giving advice which might cause death.

The Doctor's dilemma is that he dare not advise against immunization because there is a remote risk that harm may ensue but he faces the same problem should he advise the use of the MMR vaccine against the parent's wishes since the vaccine itself can cause harm.
Concerns are now being raised about deaths which may be due to the meningitis vaccine and parents have even caught polio as the result of the use of the live polio vaccine which leaves nappies infectious.
There are obvious direct risks which result from the vaccines but there are other considerations.

In the modern world children are exposed to high levels of immune suppressing chemicals, from the pesticide residues in food, to perfumes and antibacterial agents and from the pollutants released by industry and transport. The fast food diets of many are admitted to provide poor nutrition for many children and it is known that poor nutrition can result in a damaged immune system.

Pesticides too can weaken the immune system and we know that these are often added to the food we eat. Some years ago scientists called for the immediate ban of many commonly used pesticides regularly found as residues in children's food because of the potential risk to health. The child's body is developing rapidly and with an improperly formed immune system and a greater intake of dangerous chemicals due to the comparatively low body weight the dangers to the young are obvious.

We know that vaccines should not be administered to such children but this is exactly what is happening and yet we are repeatedly assured that the practice is safe.

There is a sinister hidden risk which has so far not been examined and this involves the way in which vaccines are produced. Evidence is coming to light which indicates that material derived from dead cattle is used in the vaccine production process.

It is recognised that the risk of transmission of diseases such as BSE and new variant CJD are many times greater through injected material than it is via the food we eat.
Despite this the UK Agricultural Industry wrongly took the blame for BSE and the crisis lost the UK economy billions of pounds.

We must ask then why the material taken randomly from the dead bodies of cattle which was intended for use in injections for cattle and humans alike was not destroyed but apparently remained in use for years after the same type of material was banned in the food chain?

Scientists tell us that the incubation period for such diseases can be decades and yet they were happy to continue to allow the use of the very "infected" material which they knew could cause CJD when injected.
This had been demonstrated to deadly effect when hormonal treatments produced from the glands of dead humans had been injected into children who had retarded growth rates. This was known at the time of the BSE crisis and yet the risk from injected products produced from parts taken from the bodies of dead cattle was completely ignored then - and is rarely even mentioned in official circles to this day.

More recently concerns have been expressed about the suspected links between the polio vaccines and the introduction of AIDS into the human population.
It would seem that Scientists now suggest that material taken from chimpanzees and used to produce vaccines may have been contaminated and that the AIDS virus was introduced into humans with the vaccine.
If this is the case it offers further evidence that such practices are extremely dangerous and yet science seems determined to continue in the efforts to obtain materials from animals to treat humans.

We must ask why these experiments are being carried out on children who have no way to protect themselves?

Similar problems are found in other areas such as the treatment of head lice.
These small creatures have always been regarded as a serious problem in school children and there was a time when parents feared the discovery of the little pests by the school "Nit Nurse". Those days have long gone and parents regularly complain that no sooner have they treated their children than they return from school re-infested.
As with the once dreaded verruca, children were excluded from activities until the problem was resolved. Drugs came to cure the verruca and now they can be spread freely, seemingly with little concern. Similarly "Lotions" could rid the child of head lice and the schools relied upon the parents to keep controlling the infestations at home.

Those "lotions" often contain pesticides and some of those are the deadly Organophosphate poisons which parents repeatedly apply to their children's hair.
Applications of systemic OPs to the skin has the same effect as injecting them into the blood stream.
These are cumulative poisons so each time they are used the amount of irreversible damage caused to the child, and its immune system, increases.

A hospital in the UK decided to run trials using children in order to study the possible resistance of the head lice to the lotions used. The Hospital knew the dangers from the chemicals because the trial was reportedly run with the involvement of a specialist poisons unit but the children could not have known the dangers or given their informed consent to accept the risks to which their health was being put by those responsible for their care.

The hospital which controls that same poisons unit has itself been reported as being involved in the promotion of genetically modified crops designed to give doses of vaccines to anyone who eats the food produced from them, whether or not they need or wish to be given that vaccine. The latest idea involves apples which we are constantly told we should feed more of to our children. This is an abuse of all of our human rights but it is an experiment from which we will have no means of escape because we will not know which foods have been modified, just as we now have no knowledge of which drugs we give to our children or ourselves have been produced by Genetic Engineering technology.

It would appear that the vaccine programme is also an experiment performed on the children without their knowledge or consent.

Experimentation without consent is an affront to the Human Rights of the child.

Since this first appeared on the web the controversy over vaccines and the MMR vaccine in particular has continued. The UK government stands firm in its belief that the MMR vaccine is "safe" and seems determined to use scare tactics on the parents in order to convince them that their policy of refusing the single vaccines is the right one. Fear is a powerful weapon.
However news from around the world is not as reassuring as parents might hope and there have been admitted concerns over the mercury based preservatives used in some vaccines. It should be noted that the authorities assure us that the MMR vaccine does not contain that preservative, though some reports suggest otherwise.
A very good source of information can be found in the Publication "WAVES" which issues Warnings About Vaccine ExpectationS. It is the magazine of the Immunization Awareness Society based in Auckland, New Zealand and they have a web site http://www.ias.org.nz
Meanwhile Government and the industry are seemingly determined to use vaccination for an ever lengthening list of ailments as if such treatments will give life-long immunity when in many cases it may even increase susceptibility to illness. This is especially a concern in young children whose immature immune system is already susceptible to disease and may be weakened by both environmental toxins and the vaccination programme

A further update is required for the comments above since there have been numerous important developments since the article was written. Interestingly the newly emerged facts are not reassuring for any of us, despite the propaganda from the authorities.

In the USA and in Italy court cases have been won in which the damage caused to children has been linked to the injection of the MMR vaccine. Such cases include Hannah Poling, Bailey Banks, Misty Hyatt, Kienan Freeman, Valentino Bocca, and Julia Grimes where either governments or the courts confirmed that vaccines had caused brain injury.
Autism resulted from those injuries.

In the Poling case in the USA that Autism was linked to altered mitochondria.
The UK Pesticide Safety Directorate admitted in writing that the herbicide glyphosate used on cereal crops around the world for human consumption damaged the mitochondria at all dose levels tested.

The levels of Autism in the Western world are rising rapidly and yet the link to the use of this chemical and genetically engineered vaccines and viruses is not being made.

In the UK Committee on Toxicity OP research workshop paper of March 2000, http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/opworkshop20mar00.pdf
"It was noted that there had been a small number of studies including an item in the Lancet circa 1996 which had examined extensive disturbance of cellular components of immunity in a laboratory study. Reference was also made to a WHO document indicating an OP eliciting auto-immune response and, therefore, advising caution in undergoing vaccination following exposure to OPs. It was suggested that there was also a possibility of an OP impact on hormones (as endocrine disruptors) which could be synergistic or additive."

It would therefore be wise to examine carefully both our children's and our own exposures to these cumulative DNA toxins and consider very carefully the risks of auto-immune responses following vaccination. There is no doubt that the majority of vaccinated individuals would have been exposed to OPs but neither they nor the authorities can ever know if they were the unlucky ones who ate food from the inevitable "hot spots" of massively high doses that have resulted from inappropriate or accidental additions of those chemicals in our foods.

In recent months (2013) there have been reports of several outbreaks of measles in various parts of the world. The official propaganda states with certainty that those outbreaks are the result of the failure to vaccinate during the scare about "The" MMR vaccine that was triggered in large part by research carried out by Dr Wakefield. That research triggered a campaign to discredit any doctor who dared to question the safety of "The MMR" vaccine but in truth there was never any such thing as "The" MMR vaccine since there were many different types of MMR and some were proven to be dangerous to those injected with the vaccines.
Written information from the Department of Health's Immunisation Team dated 12 December 2001 suggests that the UK Government has much to answer for as many versions of the MMR vaccine have been withdrawn due to known dangers.
The DoH stated.
MMR-I was first licensed in the UK in 1972 after tests on just 900 children and safety data on a mere 2000.
MMR-II replaced MMR-I in 1987 after tests on some 800 children in a clinical trial.
Pluserix was introduced in 1988 based on testing of some 600 children but was then withdrawn.
Imravax was licensed, but apparently not used, in the UK in 1989 after trials involving some 6,400 children
Prioris was introduced in 1997 after trials involving 6000 children.

Note that the children were used in experimental trials despite their rights under the Nuremberg Code.

On 24th April 2013 it was reported that the British Medical Association was warning people against having single measles jabs at private clinics saying they are not as effective as the MMR. In the previous week about 10,000 non-routine Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccinations had been given at clinics around Wales but the number of cases of measles continued to rise and by then stood at almost 900.

Among that number one of the cases was reported as a death linked to measles but the vaccination status of that 25-year old man was not reported and he would presumably have been due his vaccinations before the MMR controversy had begun. It appears that this man had been hospitalised in previous weeks due to serious asthma problems and so his death may have been the result of that health problem. This did not appear to matter to the authorities in the UK however as the tragedy was seen as opportunistic by those seeking to promote the MMR vaccination programme.
This despite reports suggesting that many children fully vaccinated by MMR also suffered from measles.

In 1995 a US pharmacology text book gave a full list of vaccines, with the optimum vaccination times and the period of protection provided by those vaccines.
The proven single vaccines for Mumps, Measles and Rubella were listed as providing immunity for life - directly contradicting claims made in the UK by both the Department of Health and the British Medical Association.

Vaccine information from Basic and Clinical Pharmacology USA 1995
ISBN 0-8385-0619-4

VACCINE ADMINISTER AT AGE OF TYPE OF AGENT NUMBER OF DOSES PERIOD OF INDUCED IMMUNITY
MEASLES 15 months or earlier in epidemics Live Virus Single PERMANENT
May prevent disease if given
within 48 hrs of exposure
MUMPS After 1 year Live Virus Single PERMANENT
RUBELLA After 15 months Live Virus Single PERMANENT
Prevents disease but not infection
Prevent pregnancy within 3 months of injection

Note that despite the dangers admitted above the MMR is recommended for pregnant females even though there is a Rubella vaccine included but the MMR does not appear to be capable of providing true immunity even with "boosters" and therefore it would seem that those who blame the UK Government Policy for the breakdown in the immunisation programme have sound grounds for that view.
This is especially so given that reports suggest the Government knew that an MMR vaccine relied upon was not safe but insisted in its use promising the manufacturers immunity from litigation because they had a policy of abandoning individual vaccines on the spurious grounds that fewer injections would be required.
A Government cost cutting exercise perhaps?
One result of this is that legal costs to government and the Legal Aid system increased enormously as parents with children harmed by the MMR vaccine were encouraged by lawyers to take legal action when it is clear that they had no chance of success because of that granted immunity from litigation.

In this way the chosen lawyers were able to boost their incomes but those families with legitimate claims for their harmed children were left with no support or compensation for the serious harm done to their children.

"Vaccination" is not the same as "Immunisation"

It seems clear that the vaccination programme is rapidly expanding to include countless numbers of illnesses and health problems but even proponents of that programme no longer pretend that true immunisation is provided by those vaccines.

Another example is the pneumonia vaccine given to elderly people, often to those in Care Homes. some have not recovered from the vaccination even with repeated courses of numerous antibiotics. In at least one case in the UK an elderly lady was given a combination of influenza and pneumonia vaccines and despite just such treatment with antibiotics the pneumonia took her life. It was not mentioned on the Death Certificate.

Whatever the true intention the vaccine manufacturers are making fortunes by convincing people by using fear of illness to succumb to the vaccination programme, often, as with the influenza vaccine, with repeated annual injections of vaccines that have been admitted not to work effectively.

Should we be risking future generations in this way?

Dated 16/9/2000    Updated 25/4/2013

Go to top

  Return to Front Page;   Return to Latest Updates   Return to Contents file