Now there is proof from an official source: vaccinations are harmful to
health; allergies, developmental disorders, chronic illnesses and infections
other than childhood illnesses are more prevalent in vaccinated children!
Between May 2003 and May 2006, Germany's top health authority, the Robert Koch
Institute (RKI) conducted a large study called KiGGS. Its purpose was to
examine the physical and psychological health of 17,641 children and youths
between the ages of 0 and 17 years. First, the parents and their children were
asked to complete a comprehensive questionnaire. The second part consisted of
an interview with a doctor, and blood and urine tests. The vaccination
certificates, if any, were also copied. At the study's completion, there were
about 1,500 individual results for each participant, making a total of over 26
million data items.
Even while the study was progressing, its importance was continually
stressed. The evaluation of the data would provide comprehensive clues
concerning the health of today's children and youths and the environmental
factors which may possibly influence it. It was claimed that this study would
be able to provide the basis for improving the health of children and youths.
The findings were therefore awaited with great anticipation, as at this point
it was already known that vaccinations were also going to be included in the
questionnaire.
One year after the completion of the study, a double edition of the 'Bundesgesundheitsblatt' (Federal
Health Bulletin) presented over 900 pages of study results to the public.
Meanwhile, about 200 scientific publications concerning the e valuations and
findings of the KiGGS study have been published. The connection between
vaccination status and health was however completely omitted!
There wasn't even a reference to the often publicly discussed subject of
“Vaccination as a trigger of allergies”. It was however mentioned that the raw
data of the study would be made available to interested parties as a “public
use file”. I was therefore very pleased that I was able to order a copy of the
collected data at the beginning of 2009 and to actually receive it, after
having paid a fee of 90 EUR. I was concerned until the very last that my
request for the data would be declined, as I had openly stated on the
application form what I intended to do with the data.
Since the spring of 2009, I have been busy with analysing the data and
have been continually uncovering and publishing new findings. Those who know
are aware of my love for mathematics, numbers and logical correlations and that
I welcome challenges of this kind.
After I published my findings in June 2009, I was sharply attacked by
the Robert Koch-Institute. The RKI claimed that my interpretations were grossly
flawed. It was alleged that my research methods were incorrect and that I was
incompetent. According to the RKI, not even one of the findings I had published
would stand up to scrutiny. They also said that they were working on a paper
which would disprove my allegations, which would be published in Germany's
medical journal “Deutsches Ärzteblatt“ by the middle of 2010. Until now, nothing has however been published.
It is left to the imagination of the enlightened reader to figure out what
prompted Germany's top health authority to attack a person who does clean and
honest work, without providing any evidence to back up its accusations.
The findings of the so-called TOKEN-Study, which was also conducted
under the auspices of the Robert Koch-Institute, also fall into this category.
Starting at 9 weeks (!) after they are born, in Germany babies are repeatedly
injected with combination vaccines. An increase in baby deaths following the
six-vaccines-in-one-injection stirred up considerable controversy and led to an
investigation of all deaths of uncertain causes from 2005 until 2008, to see if
the deaths were linked to the vaccinations. The findings were to be published
by the end of 2008, but as yet, nothing concerning this subject has been made
public.
Earlier this year, a lecture concerning the topic had been announced for
a specialist conference, but was cancelled at short notice without giving any
reasons as to why. One can only speculate as to the reasons for such obvious
delays in addressing these topics. That the manufacturers of the sextuple
vaccine financed most of the study obviously doesn't contribute to the study's
neutrality.
But now, let's return to my evaluation of the KiGGS-study. First, it
seemed that I wouldn't get anywhere. The accompanying description of the data
was inconsistent and lacked detailed information. In this study also, neglected
or very sickly and consequently less vaccinated children had been lumped
together with children whose parents had made a conscious decision not to
vaccinate, or to vaccinate selectively.
After a few days of examining the KiGGS data, I was somewhat
discouraged. Too many valuable questions concerning vaccination issues had been
removed from the raw data after the end of the study. Two pages of the
interview with the doctor concerning vaccination topics, which included
parents' answers, were completely missing. The answers to the questions “What
were your reasons for not allowing your child to be vaccinated?” or “Has your
child not tolerated a vaccination well?” had for example been completely
removed from the data made available to the public. These answers would have
made it possible to differentiate between children whose parents made a
conscious decision to not vaccinate, or to only partially vaccinate, and children
who had not yet been vaccinated due to illness, or due to parental negligence.
This differentiation is important, because if the statistics of these two
groups are lumped together, it obviously worsens the health statistics of the
healthier vaccine free children.
Already at this point, I however found despite the missing data,
important conclusions about improving children's health could be found in this
comprehensive study. Because for each child that had been examined the exact
number of vaccinations had been noted, I was able to present clear and
unexpected correlations regardless of these obstacles. Many of these
correlations between vaccination status and health are statistically
significant, or even highly significant. There is a 5% chance that a
statistically significant correlation is a coincidence, and a 1% chance that a
highly significant correlation is a coincidence. In statistical analysis, this
probability of error reflects the quality as far as the significance of a
finding is concerned.
Everyone who suffers from an allergy, or knows someone who does, is
aware of how much this chronic condition lowers the quality of life.
Vaccine-related allergies have already been discussed for several decades. In
1997, an experienced homeopathic doctor told me at the first 'Vaccine Critics
Conference' I h ad organized that accounts of hay-fever only appeared after the
introduction of smallpox vaccination and that historical research has shown
that wherever vaccinations were carried out, epidemics of allergies followed (Dr
med. Arthur L.
Braun, “Heuschnupfen und Impfung-Ein Beitrag zur Ursachenforschung der
Allergie”, 1. Impfkritiker-Konferenz 19./ 20. April 1997). Dr med Gerhard
Buchwald has also referred to the historical connection between vaccinations and
allergies in his book 'Impfen – Das Geschäft mit der Angst' – 'Vaccination – A
Business Based On Fear'.
In recent times, one increasingly re ads claims from supporters of
vaccination and the health authorities that vaccinations even protect against
allergies. They point out that in the former East Germany, allergies were
reportedly a rarity in spite of mandatory vaccination. I however know from
reliable sources that in the former East Germany, children who developed an
allergy were not-or only rarely-given further vaccinations, as people were
aware of the connection between vaccinations and allergies. I was therefore
particularly curious concerning this matter and concentrated my efforts on the
evaluation of the data concerning these connections, and have already found
evidence which supports a link.
The
incidence of eczema (neurodermatitis) is almost double; that of hay fever more
than double, and chrome allergy five times as high as the incidence of these
complaints in vaccine-free children!
If it had been possible to filter from the group of unvaccinated
children those who had not been vaccinated because they had been too sick, the
differences would probably be even greater.
It is also regrettable that 7% of the parents did not complete the
vaccination section of the questionnaire and that the group of children, whose
data concerning vaccination are completely missing, is with 7% therefore rather
large. There are presumably many children hidden in this group whose parents
made a conscious choice to give their children few, or no vaccines. It appears
that to avoid unpleasant disputes with the doctors conducting the study, the
parents had withheld the information concerning vaccination. This stance of
the parents is understandable, as the doctors in the study put the parents they
interviewed under pressure to complete any outstanding vaccinations. Those of
us who don't vaccinate our children are already well acquainted with doctors'
scaremongering and pressure tactics. My evaluations of the study data will now
provide us with powerful arguments to counter such tactics.
The differing vaccination rates depending on the one hand on the vaccine,
and on the other on the socio-economic group, was a further surprise to me. As
I had anticipated, tetanus vaccination was the most rarely, and rubella
vaccination the most often refused vaccination. The survey comprised nine
childhood vaccinations: tetanus, diphtheria, polio, Hib (bacterial meningitis),
pertussis (whooping cough), hepatitis B-usually given via the above mentioned
six-vaccines-in one-injection, and measles, mumps and rubella – usually given
via the triple MMR-vaccine, or today as the quadruple vaccine, which includes
chickenpox.
The differences in vaccination rates show clearly that the vaccination
decision is today often a conscious process and that there are many options
ranging between complete vaccination and non-vaccination. These individual
choices are however becoming increasingly difficult for parents, due to the
increasing and now prevailing use of combination vaccines. This increasingly
tends to narrow parents' options, namely to either comply with the vaccination
schedule, or else to not vaccinate at all.
The evidence of a conscious individual decision is an important argument
against the blanket accusation of child neglect, irresponsibility, or the
so-called “vaccination fatigue” (in German-speaking countries referred to as “Impfmuffel”
or “Impfmüdigkeit”). After all, the right to raise and care for our children is
protected by our constitution. Now that we have powerful arguments in our favor,
we need to insist all the more on this right. As parents, we know best what is
good for our children and what we want for them.
Of the 17,641 study participants, 217 (= 1.23%) were not vaccinated
against tetanus. This figure was made up of those who either presented a
vaccination certificate, or indicated that they had deliberately chosen not to
have a certificate. Here I took into account a factor referred to as
“statistical weight”, which had been introduced into the study to even out
possible distortions, e.g. those resulting from non-participation by study
participants which had been chosen at random. I chose tetanus as an example,
because many parents fear this disease most. If one extrapolates the total
number of children from the number of unvaccinated children in the study, there
are well over 100,000 children and youths between the ages of one and 17 years
who haven't been vaccinated against tetanus in Germany. Yet, in spite of this,
there hasn't been a single tetanus death for decades in this age group. The few
children who according to hospital statistics have become ill with tetanus each
year (between 4 and 10 children per year) are successfully treated in hospital.
The vaccination status of these infected children is unknown. Presumably there
are also vaccinated children among them.
There were 1,779 children in the study who had received more than 30
vaccinations, mostly via combination injections, in the course of their life.
On average, the children and youths between the age of 10 and 17 years had been
injected with close to 23 vaccinations. The various additives in vaccines, such
as preservatives, detergents which are also used in washing powders, aluminum
and antibiotics, are a matter of great concern to me, as some of these
additives have barely been researched and may not even be listed on the vaccine
package inserts.
Mercury was commonly used as a preservative in vaccines, but has been
largely replaced with phenoxyethanol, which has been in use for a few years
now. This chemical is used to anesthetize fish and as a preservative in
cosmetics. From the data sheets of cosmetic manufacturers, we can gather that
phenoxyethanol is known to cause allergies, skin rashes, neurological
disorders, immune system malfunctions and organ damage. Animal experiments have
also shown it to cause damage to genes and that it may be carcinogenic. The
safety data sheets stipulate that this chemical requires special disposal and
must not be allowed to get into the ground water, yet from their 9th w eek of
life, babies are injected with two and a half milligrams four times. The
medical literature describes a case of an 18-month-old infant who suffered a
severe allergic reaction which was shown to linked to this additive.
In regard to this additive, it is also of concern that while the
comprehensive English-language data sheets deposited with the European
licensing authority feature the type and quantity of this additive, this
information is completely missing in the German product information, including
the package inserts, as well as in the more elaborate specialist literature for
doctors! The explanation for this can only be that this additive doesn't have
to be listed in Germany, as in e.g. Australia these details are provided in the
manufacturer’s product information! The question arises how a doctor can
provide a patient, respectively the parent of a child, with adequate
information if such important information from the manufacturer is withheld
from the public. Because the information parents have access to is inadequate,
parents are unable to give effective informed consent concerning vaccination.
From a legal point of view, this consequently means that the doctor is
inflicting a physical injury and that the vaccine manufacturers are misleading
doctors into committing an illegal act.
If one furthermore considers that this and many other additives don't
have to be declared, and that they are not tested for as part of the vaccine
licensing process, or even after licensing, it is not surprising that vaccines
are increasingly being discussed in connection with nerve, organ and immune
system damage and that many synergistic effects remain completely
uninvestigated and are consequently unknown.
A further important aspect concerning the health of children and youths
are disorders affecting brain development. For decades now, competent critics
have pointed out a connection between vaccinations and all manner of brain
disorders of various degrees of severity and warn that vaccines permanently
impair the brain and brain development during the very important first months
and years of life. There has indeed been a remarkable increase in attention
deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) in
children and youths, which are commonly treated with drugs. Learning and
developmental disorders in children and youths are also being diagnosed with
increasing frequency and “treated” with various drugs and all manner of
therapies. Proper evaluation of the KiGGS study data to determine whether
vaccination impairs brain development is therefore obviously all the more
important.
Children are now being vaccinated at an ever earlier age. In Germany, a
baby who is vaccinated according to the official recommendations receives its
first vaccinations (the sextuple vaccination) at eight weeks, in the USA six
weeks after it is born. If a baby suffers an adverse reaction, the only way for
such a young creature to express the resulting pain and torment is high
pitched, inconsolable screaming. In the medical literature, this type of crying
is described with the French term 'criencephalique' ('brain cry') and is an
acknowledged as an adverse effect of vaccination. In safety trials, babies who
exhibit such disturbed behavior and who cry in this abnormal manner after the
first or second vaccination are commonly removed from the study.
I know from accounts of severe vaccine injuries that mot hers remarked
on this high pitched, inconsolable screaming that goes on for hours, yet on
being informed of this, doctors quite often accuse the mother of being hysterical
and continue to vaccinate. This is a serious medical error! Every package
insert mentions that vaccination should be discontinued in case of an adverse
reaction. After the second or third vaccination, epileptic fits tend to occur.
Dr Buchwald, who was our most renowned critic of vaccination in Germany,
has related for a long time his observation that vaccinations result in a
slight impairment of the optical nerves, which are also brain nerves, resulting
in impaired vision. Damage to the eye nerves is even listed as an adverse
reaction on the package insert of a childhood vaccine. It is therefore not
surprising that vaccine-free children are less likely to need glasses than
vaccinated children. It is also not uncommon for people to suddenly become blind
after a vaccination, without there being an obvious cause apart from the
preceding vaccination.
Vaccinated
children are more likely to have glasses, suffer more often from attention
deficit disorder and are three times more often in need of speech therapy.
If vaccinated children more commonly suffer from allergies and deficits
regarding their brain development, are they at least better protected against
infectious diseases and healthier because of it?
Because not only the information of whether a child had been given a
particular vaccine, but also information concerning the actual number of
vaccines which had been given was recorded in the survey data, a more exact
evaluation of a possible connection between the number of vaccines given and
the average number of infections over the previous year could be made.
The data showed that susceptibility to infections increases as a result
of vaccinations, regardless of whether they are infections involving the
stomach and intestinal tract, or simple colds.
The more
vaccinations, the more susceptible to infections the children became.
This effect can be explained with the added stress vaccinations impose
on the immune system, resulting in a weakened immune system and consequently a
heightened susceptibility to infections, and providing the
medical-pharmaceutical industry with additional profits from the sale of drugs
to treat them.
Vaccinated children also suffer significantly more often from serious
infections such as pneumonia and inner ear infections. The survey data shows
that 7.75 % of vaccine free-children, but 11.07 % of vaccinated children suffered
from pneumonia, while 39.62 % of vaccine-free children, but over 53.46 % of
vaccinated children suffered from a painful inner ear infection.
Also, over 5% of vaccinated children were diagnosed with a scoliosis,
which is an abnormal curvature of the spine. Readers may now ask how this can
be linked to vaccinations. Neurological disorders such as so-called
neuropathies, adverse reactions which are mentioned on almost every vaccine
package insert, may explain this prevalence of scoliosis in vaccinated
children. Medical science appears to be unaware of this possible link. This
topic has consequently not been the subject of any studies, in spite of this
difference in the incidence of scoliosis in vaccinated versus that in
vaccine-free children being “highly significant” in statistical terms.
Vaccinated
children and youths are at a significantly higher risk of pneumonia and inner
ear infections and over 5% of vaccinated children suffer from an abnormal
curvature of the spine, while in vaccine-free children no scoliosis was found.
Vaccine-free children have been proven to be much more resistant against
viral infections such as e.g. chickenpox, vaccinations against which have been
given only for a relatively short time, as well as bacterial illnesses such as
scarlet fever, or salmonella-related diarrhea.
Vaccinated
children are much more susceptible to infectious diseases such as chickenpox,
scarlet fever and salmonella-related diarrhea, because the immune system is
harmed by vaccinations.
Observant parents and therapists have already noted such connections for
some decades. It is therefore also not surprising that the study results show
that the more siblings there are in a family, the less vaccinations are given.
Depending on the age group, vaccine-free children have up to a third more
siblings.
Parents were also questioned about their educational qualifications as
part of the survey. My findings showed that the higher a mother's educational
qualifications, the less likely she is to vaccinate. The reason why educated
mothers may vaccinate less may simply be that they are likely to find it easier
to research information which is often written in specialist language. Obviously,
this doesn't mean that less educated mothers are less intelligent or more
irresponsible. I do however find it regrettable that that generally
understandable information which looks at vaccination in a critical light is
still not widely available.
Fathers' education doesn't appear to play a role in the vaccination
decision. I have given over 100 lectures in the past 14 years and can confirm
that only a few members of the audiences are fathers. I find this unfortunate,
as I feel that both parents need to bear the responsibility of the vaccination
decision equally. It is therefore my heartfelt wish that an increasing number
of fat hers will take an active interest in this important issue.
The evaluation of the KiGGS study data I have undertaken has proven that
vaccine free children are significantly healthier and more resistant. What then
about the so-called vaccine-induced immunity? Are vaccinated children at least
protected against the illnesses they are vaccinated for with such a high risk
of side-effects?
A certain protective effect against the particular disease does appear
to exist. It is however unknown whether this effect is possibly the result of a
certain bias of the consulted doctors. A doctor is e.g. more likely to diagnose
a possible measles rash in a child vaccinated against measles as eczema, and to
possibly misdiagnose a skin rash in a vaccine-free child as measles. It is also
possible that vaccinated children are less likely to catch childhood illnesses
they have been vaccinated against because the vaccinations they have been given
impair the immune system's normal functioning e. g. evident as a fever and a
rash.
For now, let us however assume that the data is more or less reliable.
About 10 out of 100 children who have not been vaccinated against the disease
get measles, while 6 out of 100 children who have been vaccinated against
measles get the disease. Similar results can be observed with mumps and
rubella. According to the study data, these vaccinations therefore provide a
protective effect of about 40% However, among the children who had been
vaccinated against measles who got measles anyway, there were 63 children who
had been given three or more measles vaccinations. While manufacturers and the
authorities claim that vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella provide
almost perfect protection against these diseases, the poor protective effect
demonstrated by the study contradicts their claims.
In Germany, vaccine-free children are presumed to be a danger to others,
as unlike vaccinated children, they are assumed to be contagious. The fact that
they may therefore be excluded from school in case of a measles outbreak shows
the extent to which human rights and the principle of equality enshrined in the
constitution are being violated. Because such a high number of children get
measles regardless of having been vaccinated, this discrimination against
vaccine-free children and their parents is very problematic from a legal
viewpoint, and should be ended.
The KiGGS study failed to address other factors which may influence the
health of children and youths. Anxious parents e. g. tend to take their child
to visit their doctor more frequently. Such children therefore tend to get
repeatedly vaccinated from an early age. From a holistic viewpoint, this
parental anxiety makes such children especially susceptible to ill-health.
Their impaired health may partly be due to such additional influences. Fear is
however the worst possible starting point for parents to base their decisions
on and not an appropriate foundation for raising robust, healthy and
independent children.
Parents who inflict vaccinations and other unnecessary medical
procedures on their children may benefit from questioning their attitude to
life and from seeking help to overcome their fears, to avoid falling for the
fear-based marketing ploys of the pharmaceutical industry. Because I am myself
the mother of four children, I am well aware how constant and subtle
manipulation is used to engender fear in parents. The only way to resist this
kind of pressure is to acquire factual information, and a good sense of humor.
My evaluation of this impressive study has resulted in the following
summary:
The
survey data of the KiGGS-study repeatedly provides proof that vaccine-free children
are in every respect healthier than vaccinated children. The effects of the
vaccine ingredients and in particular the adverse effects of some of the highly
toxic additives provide a logical explanation for this finding. The defamation
of non-vaccinating parents must stop immediately, as well as the direct and
indirect pressure to vaccinate, such as for example the exclusion of
vaccine-free children from school during disease outbreaks.
More comprehensive and updated information concerning the evaluation of
the KiGGS-study and other issues can be found on my homepage www.efi-online.de.
Translated by Erwin Alber alberfj@yahoo.com – thanks to Angelika Müller
, Sabina Sapiatzer and Eric Blankenbyl for their help!
Data source:
Public-Use-File KiGGS, Kinder-und Jugendgesundheitssurvey 2003-2006,
Robert Koch-Institut, Berlin 2008.
January 2012 addendum:
Meanwhile, the RKI's long ago announced rebuttal has been published in
the German Medical Journal (Deutsches Ärzteblatt) of February 2011.
Without giving any reason for it, in this assessment of the study result
the RKI removed 2479 children of migrant families and 79 children without
answers to migration status from the study. Due to the small size of the group
of vaccine-free children, the significance is now weak. A weak significance
means that there is an increased probability of an accidental result in the
course of the study assessment. The significance is considered the mark of
quality of a result, as it serves to assess the probability. As a result of the
arbitrary exclusion of these migrant children, the already small group of 132
vaccine-free children was unfortunately reduced by another 33 children, which
reduces the significance even further. In spite of this, the allergy risk is
partly also twice as high as in vaccine-free children in the RKI's assessment
of the study. Because of the poor significance, this is however considered unimportant
by the authors. It is also interesting to note the conflicts of interests
concerning two large vaccine manufacturers declared by two of the study's
authors.
~o§.§o~
Através das suas previsões astrológicas e seu mapa numerológico,
você acompanha a dinâmica planetária que descreve o seu cotidiano e a
frequência vibracional do seu dia pessoal - e assim poderá exercer o
seu livre-arbítrio com muito mais consciência! A análise dos trânsitos,
progressões, lunações e eclipses sobre o mapa natal permite uma
antecipação das crises, que podem então ser aliviadas com um tratamento
de apoio e prevenção.
Entre em contato e encomende agora suas previsões!
Rômulo Grandi
