Tag Archives: MMR

Jon Rappoport: The autism crime exposed

Most of my readers now know that my blog has been taken down by WordPress for no stated reason. We are working to restore the blog on to another server. You’re reading this either because you’re already subscribed to my email list or someone forwarded this email to you. If you’re in the latter category, then the best way to get my daily articles is go to NoMoreFakeNews.com and sign up for the email list in the upper left corner. You’ll get articles in your inbox. Thank you for your support.

This is the way the experts present autism to the public:

“It is a specific condition. We know that. It has a specific cause. We know that, too. We haven’t discovered the cause yet, but we’re making progress. Vaccines have nothing to do with autism. Most likely, the disease is genetic…”

First of all, on what basis do the experts claim they know autism is a specific condition? What do they mean by “specific?”

We can find the answer to these questions by understanding how autism is defined. And how do we do that?

There is only one way. We read the official medical definition of autism.

I will now ask you to make an effort and read the complete medical definition. Please. Plow your way through it, and as you do, ask yourself whether it strikes you as “specific.” Ask yourself if the words add up to a well-formed tight description—or do they seem to suggest a committee of psychiatrists sitting around juggling a list of behaviors and arbitrarily clustering them under the label, AUTISM:

[The following definition of autism is from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM IV (1994)]

(I) A total of six (or more) items from (A), (B), and (C), with at least two from (A), and one each from (B) and (C):

(A) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

1. marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction

2. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level

3. a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people, (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)

4. lack of social or emotional reciprocity ( note: in the description, it gives the following as examples: not actively participating in simple social play or games, preferring solitary activities, or involving others in activities only as tools or “mechanical” aids )

(B) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:

1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)

2. in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others

3. stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language

4. lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level

(C) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the following:

1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus

2. apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals

3. stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)

4. persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

(II) Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years:

(A) social interaction

(B) language as used in social communication

(C) symbolic or imaginative play

(III) The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett’s Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder.

Well, that’s it. That’s all of it. That’s the official definition of autism.

It couldn’t be less specific.

Also, notice that no single cause is listed. They don’t have one. They will claim it’s genetic, but they offer no proof. If they had solid proof, they would have listed a cause in the definition. They don’t.

The definition of autism is a complete mess. It’s a hoax.

To be sure, there are MANY children who are severely damaged. No one is denying that. But why call it autism, if this pretense of a definition is all they have?

For example, for the children who are neurologically damaged by vaccines, call it what it is: VACCINE DAMAGE. That’s clear. It points directly to a cause. And we know that vaccines contain highly toxic metals. Aluminum, for example. Mercury, another poison, hasn’t been totally eliminated from some vaccines. There are other chemicals in vaccines, such as formaldehyde, which are toxic.

Obviously, using the label, autism, covers up the fact that vaccines have been doing great damage to children. Using the term autism obscures the fact that vaccine manufacturers are criminally liable, and potentially on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars in law suits.

If a child has been damaged by exposure to, say, pesticides, call that what it is: PESTICIDE DAMAGE. Don’t try to hide the fact under the autism label.

Notice that in these two cases, vaccine and pesticide damage, we’re not talking about a disease at all. The word disease becomes another cover story to conceal real causes and real perpetrators.

If a child was struck on the head with a heavy object and sustained serious damage, and the doctor told his mother the child had suddenly contracted a disease called X, the insane absurdity of the “diagnosis” would be obvious to one and all. Well, that’s the situation here, with autism.

Don’t try to use a term (autism) to cover up the fact that the cause of the damage was clear in MANY instances. It was a “heavy object” called a vaccine, or a pesticide, or some other direct destructive force.

If anything is criminal, THIS is criminal. At the highest level.

Lying Pro-Vaxxers

I posted a comment on this ladies blog. It was deleted!
She lies about anti-vaxxers putting out mis-information. Here is my deleted post on her blog:

Why do pro-vaxxers have to lie to win their argument.

Some many points to consider, however let’s just take a singular point The moral, ethical bankruptcy of legal immunity of the vaccine pushers (manufacturers). They claim their products are “safe” and “effective” yet they NEED legal immunity from claims for harm.
It would be interesting to know what other industry/product is immune from claims and needs a government body to assess and payout claims.
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

In 2016 alone $252,610,672.33 was paid out. Page 8 of pdf: https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/monthly-stats-march-2019.pdf

Misinformation, well this is from the Vaccine compensation body itself.

Her initial post is below:

Sometimes it takes rebellious youth to help us see the error of our ways. Consider Ethan Lindenberger, an 18-year-old from Ohio. His act of rebellion wasn’t staying out past curfew or avoiding his homework: It was getting vaccinated on his own, despite his mother’s protests. Lindenberger’s mother opted her children out of vaccines and fed […]

via What a teenager who got vaccinated against his parents’ will can teach us about anti-vaxxers — Hurn Publications

Questions for the “sovereign” parliamentarians

After Brexit’s turmoil within the political bubble, we see a return to the usual obfuscations.
Theresa May stated, Brexit means Brexit. A meaningless phrase. In our desperation to see the statists acknowledge the dissent of 17.4 million brits, we assumed it was her promise.

However, we begin to wonder about the disconnect between the electorate, party members and the Westminster parliamentarians. Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and even the Scottish Nationalists  leant towards staying in the EU.

Chart showing MPs backing the leave or remain camps

Direct questioning of these elected representative is now essential preferably in person. To that end here are some questions to size up their integrity:

  • Why do we borrow money with interest from the Bank of England when alternatives like the Bradbury pound exists?
  • Why are the allegations of child abuse and satanic ritual abuse not fully investigated and prosecuted? UK Column links and Zurich Insurance Behind Child Sex Abuse Investigation Shutdown?
  • If the Queen has no discretion in consenting to statutes passed by the parliament, why do we still need this ceremonial consent?
  • Why does the Crown Corporation (City of London) have a permanent unelected “Remembrancer” in the Houses of Parliament?
  • Would they resign having lost the backing of their constituency especially in relation to Brexit?
  • Will they vote to repeal the European Communities Act 1972?
  • Does the existence of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 disprove that vaccines are safe?
  • The US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been caught twice lying about its data (Swine flu data scrubbed and MMR study distorted). Does the MMR fraud not warrant a criminal prosecution of the officers of Merck, the makers of the MMR vaccine?
  • Is it ethical and lawful to impose an agreement like the TTIP, arrived at in secrecy upon the public?
  • Is it ethical and lawful to impose a private, corporate court upon a nation state as envisaged in the ISDS?
  • Is it ethical or lawful to grant statutory immunity to the Bank of International Settlements, the IMF, Bank of England and the Federal Reserve? Are these bodies above the “law”?  Where is the equality before the “law”?
  • Are there any rights that cannot be violated by the state? If there are none, then what rights do states claim to protect?
  • If the nation state does not serve the common man/woman, whom does it serve and why are we compelled to honour or consent to their interests?

Let’s call them litmus test questions. The MPs squirming, blathering will clearly show their affiliations. 17.4 Million Brexiteers have questions for their local MPs.
Updated:  14/08/2016

Man Made Epidemic – The Movie

Link
Filmmaker Natalie Beer sets off on a journey around the world speaking to leading doctors, scientists and families to find out the truth about the autism epidemic and whether or not vaccines have a role to play.

The film explores the common misconception that autism is solely genetic and looks into scientists concerns over recent years about environmental factors such as medication and pesticides which continue to leave our children with physical and neurological damage.

Note: This is not an endorsement of the movie as I have not seen it, however anyone asking questions of the murderous dogma of vaccines will get a welcome audience.

BBC:The power of vaccinating pregnant women

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36335609

“Vaccinating pregnant women is crucial, and a way of plugging the “immunisation loophole” and protecting their unborn babies.
In 2012, a nationwide outbreak of whooping cough swept across the UK.
Almost 12,000 people were struck down by the highly infectious disease, which is marked by paroxysmal coughing – accompanied in some cases by the distinctive “whoop” – and can cause severe complications and death.
Newborn babies are especially vulnerable, and, in the three years from 2012 to 2014, a total of 24 babies died under the age of three months old. Thousands more were admitted to hospital.
The sudden upsurge came after more than a decade in which the number of cases had remained in the hundreds.
It proved, in tragic fashion, the vital importance of vaccinating the mother to protect her soon-to-be-born child.
For although whooping cough (known by the medical term pertussis) is a vaccine-preventable disease, the vaccine does not work in those most at risk – babies under three months.
Their developing immune systems are unable to mount the protective response that vaccination in an older infant will trigger

To ensure protection for newborns via their mothers, all pregnant women in the UK have been offered the pertussis vaccine in the third trimester of pregnancy since 2012, but many resist because of misplaced fears about its safety.
Today, it is combined with vaccines against polio, diphtheria and tetanus – diseases that have been virtually eliminated from the UK but could make a comeback.
The combined vaccine, called Boostrix IPV, had a take up rate in England of 62% in 2014.”

More: The power of vaccinating pregnant women
Note: Mad, mad pharma, let’s move to the mother. Inject foreign dna and toxins during pregnancy. How can they even claim to have done studies which would be highly unethical! Who makes Boostrix IPV? GlaxoSmithKline!

https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/28679
“Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy, embryonal/foetal development, parturition or post-natal development

BOOSTRIX-IPV should not be administered to subjects who have experienced neurological complications following an earlier immunisation against diphtheria and/or tetanus (for convulsions or hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes”