The fact that many vaccines are ineffective is becoming increasingly apparent. Merck was slapped with two separate class action lawsuits contending they lied about the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine in their combination MMR shot, and fabricated efficacy studies to maintain the illusion for the past two decades that the vaccine is highly protective.
Studies such as one published in the Human and Experimental Toxicology journal found a direct statistical correlation between higher vaccine doses and infant mortality rates. The study, Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?, was conducted by Gary S. Goldman and Neil Z. Miller who has been studying the dangers of vaccines for 25 years.
In the United States, children typically receive their mumps vaccination as part of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises children to receive their first dose between 12 and 18 months, and their second between the ages of 4 and 6.
Evidence has been published in the medical literature that vaccinated persons can get measles because either they do not respond to the vaccine or the vaccine’s efficacy wanes over time and vaccinated mothers do not transfer long lasting maternal antibodies to their infants to protect them in the first few months of life.
Brian Hooker’s published paper, is a comprehensive analysis of the CDC’s own data from 2003 revealing a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American children following the MMR vaccine.
Brian Hooker’s research in the Translational Neurodegeneration Journal provides the most recent epidemiological evidence showing that African American males receiving the MMR vaccine prior to 24 months of age or 36 months of age are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis.
Whistleblower Dr. William Thompson confirmed that “the CDC knew about the relationship between the age of first MMR vaccine and autism incidence in African-American boys as early as 2003, but chose to cover it up.” He remarked “we’ve missed ten years of research because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. They’re not doing what they should be doing because they’re afraid to look for things that might be associated.” He alleges criminal wrongdoing by his supervisors, and he expressed deep regret about his role in helping the CDC hide data.
Measles Virus Does Not Exist
German biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka initially offered 100,000 euros to anyone who could provide scientific evidence that the measles virus existed. He had initially been ordered to pay up in court after Doctor David Bardens attempted to claim the prize after providing the biologist with a study that had been published in a medical journal. At that time, a Judge in the regional court in Ravensburg, South Germany, ruled in the favour of Dr. Bardens in a controversial decision claiming the criteria for evidence had been met.
The First Civil Senate of the BGH confirmed a judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) on in February 2016. The sum of 100,000 euros which was offered as a reward for scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus did have to be paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also was ordered to bear all procedural costs.
Five experts have been involved in the case and presented the results of scientific studies. All five experts, including Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Podbielski who had been appointed by the OLG Stuttgart as the preceding court, have consistently found that none of the six publications which have been introduced to the trial, contains scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus.
In the trial, the results of research into so-called genetic fingerprints of alleged measles virus have been introduced. Two recognised laboratories, including the world’s largest and leading genetic Institute, arrived at exactly the same results independently.The results prove that the authors of the six publications in the measles virus case were wrong, and as a direct result all measles virologists are still wrong today: They have misinterpreted ordinary constituents of cells as part of the suspected measles virus.
Because of this error, during decades of consensus building process, normal cell constituents were mentally assembled into a model of a measles virus. To this day, an actual structure that corresponds to this model has been found neither in a human, nor in an animal. With the results of the genetic tests, all thesis of existence of measles virus has been scientifically disproved.
The authors of the six publications and all other persons involved, did not realise the error because they violated the fundamental scientific duty, which is the need to work “lege artis”, i.e. in accordance with internationally defined rules and best practice of science. They did not carry out any control experiments. Control experiments would have protected authors and mankind from this momentous error. This error became the basis of belief in the existence of any disease-causing viruses. The expert appointed by the court, Prof. Dr. Dr. Podbielski, answering to the relevant question by the court, as per page 7 of the protocol explicitly confirmed that the authors did not conduct any control experiments.
The OLG Stuttgart overturned the judgment of the court of first instance, dismissed the action and referred, inter alia, to the central message of Prof. Podbielski with respect to the six publications. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the OLG to the Supreme Court. As reason he stated his subjective, yet factually false perception of the trial sequence at the court in Stuttgart, and the assertion that our naming of facts about measles posed a threat to public health. The plaintiff’s position was rejected by the Supreme Court in plain words. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the OLG Stuttgart from February 16, 2016.
The six publications submitted in the trial are the main relevant publications on the subject of “measles virus.” Since further to these six publications there not any other publications which would attempt by scientific methods to prove the existence of the measles virus, the Supreme Court judgment in the measles virus trial and the results of the genetic tests have consequences: Any national and international statements on the alleged measles virus, the infectivity of measles, and on the benefit and safety of vaccination against measles, are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of their legal basis.
Upon enquiries which had been triggered by the measles virus contest, the head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, admitted an important fact. This admission may explain the increased rate of vaccination-induced disabilities, namely of vaccination against measles, and why and how specifically this kind of vaccination seems to increasingly trigger autism.
Prof. Mankertz has admitted that the “measles virus” contains typical cell’s natural components (ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell). Since the vaccination against measles contains whole “whole measles virus”, this vaccine contains cell’s own structures. This explains why vaccination against measles causes frequent and more severe allergies and autoimmune reactions than other types of vaccination. The court expert Prof. Podbielski stated on several occasions that by the assertion of the RKI with regard to ribosomes in the measles virus, the thesis of existence of measles virus has been falsified.
In the trial it was also put on record that the highest German scientific authority in the field of infectious diseases, the RKI, contrary to its legal remit as per 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), has failed to create tests for alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on measles virus, however refuses to hand over or publish the results.
Additional information: All living cells contain ribosomes, tiny organelles composed of approximately 60 percent ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and 40 percent protein. However, though they are generally described as organelles, it is important to note that ribosomes are not bound by a membrane and are much smaller than other organelles. Some cell types may hold a few million ribosomes, but several thousand is more typical. The organelles require the use of an electron microscope to be visually detected. See https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/
Differences between Viruses and Bacteria http://www.diffen.com/
________ Bacteria Virus_____
Ribosomes Present Absent
Cell wall Peptidoglycan / Lipopolysaccharide No cell wall. Protein coat present instead.
Living attributes Living organism Opinions differ on whether viruses are a
Introduction Bacteria constitute a large domain of prokaryotic A virus is a small infectious agent that replicates only
(from Wikipedia) microorganisms. Typically a few micrometres in length, inside the living cells of other organisms.
bacteria have a number of shapes, ranging from spheres
to rods and spirals.
Reproduction Fission- a form of asexual reproduction
Number of cells Unicellular; one cell
Structures DNA and RNA floating freely in cytoplasm. DNA or RNA enclosed inside a coat of protein.
Treatment Antibiotics Vaccines prevent the spread and antiviral medications help to slow
Infection Localized Systemic
Benefits Some bacteria are beneficial
Size Larger (1000nm) Smaller (20 - 400nm)
it is the BS of viruses (root in Latin means poison) that is the subject of microbiologist Stefan Lanka's 100,000 Euro challenge. To understand the depth of deception, spend some time on his website:
If the above doesn't format correctly, go to http://www.diffen.com/