by Dr.Harald Wiesendanger– Klartext
What the mainstream media is hiding
A one-year-old baby, previously perfectly healthy and alert, receives six injections of 12 vaccines – half a day later, it is dead. How do “fact checkers” explain the reason to distraught relatives? When will parents finally start weighing the benefits and risks of each “shot”? Pro-vaxxers ignore numerous studies that prove that unvaccinated children are healthier.
Until the afternoon of March 26, 1-year-old Sa’Niya was a perfectly healthy, lively, and happy baby. Fifteen days earlier, she had turned one. (Q)
At 4 p.m., a purely “well-child” appointment took place at the pediatrician’s office of Golisano Children’s Hospital in Rochester, New York. Present were her parents, Shanticia Nelson and Kayon Carter, and her grandmother, Latricia Hanley. According to the protocol, Sa’Niya received six vaccinations with a total of 12 vaccines, including “DTap/Hep B/IPV (Pediarix), HiB/Acthib/Hiberix, 20-valent pneumococcal vaccine, varicella (commonly known as chickenpox), MMR, and hepatitis A,” as well as sodium for her teeth.
“Why does my child need so many vaccinations at once?” the father asked the nurse administering the shots. The doctor then became furious: “She needs these vaccinations! You have to give her these vaccinations!” She neither explained the various vaccines nor pointed out possible side effects, such as seizures and death. There was no “informed consent” from the parents whatsoever.
The girl had missed her six-month appointment. Now, at the one-year checkup, vaccinations needed to be “catch up,” they were told – entirely in line with a recommendation from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).
Sa’Niya was generally a healthy baby. However, on the day of the vaccination, she had a slight cough, runny nose, acute eczema, diaper rash, and constipation.
“I just want my baby back.”
A few hours after the “prick,” Sa’Niya began to roll her eyes. Foam poured from her mouth.
The mother immediately realized that something was wrong with her child. “I looked at my baby and said, ‘No, my baby isn’t okay… that’s not my daughter. My daughter is active. As soon as she’s picked up, she’s active.'” But now Sa’Niya “just lay there… her eyes were wandering around. She didn’t respond to me calling her name like she usually did.”
The parents called emergency services, and an ambulance took Sa’Niya and her mother to Saint Vincent Hospital in Lake Erie, Pennsylvania. Upon arrival at the hospital, Sa’Niya had four seizures. While the doctors began running various tests, Shanticia Nelson left the hospital room to get her husband and two older children.
After arriving, they had been sitting in the waiting room for less than two minutes when a nurse told them, “I’m sorry, but your daughter—she’s very sick… She’s in cardiac arrest right now.” She didn’t respond to attempts to resuscitate Sa’Niya. Her blood sugar level was over 700.
The hospital staff continued CPR for 40 minutes. At around 4:00 a.m. on March 27, it was clear: the baby no longer had a pulse.
Sa’Niya is dead.
Too many parents start questioning too late.
It’s not uncommon for a healthy baby to die shortly after receiving multiple vaccinations, explains pediatrician Dr. Elizabeth Mumper. “Some infants don’t have the liver function or detoxification capacity to handle cumulative aluminum exposure. Vaccines stress the mitochondria—the powerhouses of the cell. Some babies don’t have sufficient mitochondrial reserves to withstand the oxidative stress of multiple vaccinations on the same day.”
How many parents will Sa’Niya’s heartbreaking fate finally open their eyes to how highly risky these trivialized “shots” really are? Vaccines contain carcinogenic, allergenic, and mutagenic substances, as well as neurotoxins like mercury; if spilled, they must be disposed of as hazardous waste. Despite the potential dangers, doctors are authorized to continue injecting them into infants as they wish, regardless of the health consequences – because during their studies and continuing education, they were constantly told that vaccinations are “effective and safe.” Furthermore, “jab” bonuses create lucrative incentives. And which parents dare sue the vaccine industrial complex and its henchmen? How many inform themselves in time before a “preventive” treatment ends in death? How many ask early enough:
Does vaccination make you healthier?
Do vaccines actually improve health? Using flimsy excuses, authorities have always refused to conduct proper scientific research into the alleged connection. However, hundreds of studies now show that vaccinated people have a far higher risk of numerous chronic diseases. This risk increases the more frequently and earlier the “jab” is given. Parents must be aware of what they may be doing to their children if they ignore this fact.
Yes, the majority of vaccines appear largely safe – within six weeks, but often only for two to four days, during which their side effects are monitored in clinical trials. Only single vaccinations are tested, even though infants now receive up to nine vaccines at once. (1)
What does this lead to in the long term? What effect do vaccines have on the body months, years, or even decades after the “jab”?
There’s only one way to determine this: by comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.
But to this day, health authorities refuse to initiate appropriate investigations.
It’s thanks to curious, courageous scientists that such studies have long been available. Not just a few. There are hundreds – methodologically high-quality, peer-reviewed, published in respected journals. They consistently and clearly demonstrate that vaccines increase the risk of chronic disease – not just a statistically small amount, but highly significant. Dramatically, indeed. They expose one of the supposedly “greatest achievements in the history of medicine” (2) as a terrible debacle—even more so than a monstrous crime, to the extent that those responsible knowingly accept it.
The eye-openers include six recent studies published between 2017 and 2022. Using different research approaches, they independently come to the same conclusion: So-called “vaccinations” do not protect our health at all. Quite the opposite.
The two Mawson studies: Six- to twelve-year-olds are clearly better off unvaccinated
In 2017, Anthony Mawson, a professor at the Institute of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of Jackson, Mississippi, uncovered what children are being treated with when they are mercilessly subjected to official vaccination schedules. His research team surveyed the parents of 666 six- to twelve-year-olds who were homeschooled. Of these, 197 were fully vaccinated, 208 were partially vaccinated, and 261 were not vaccinated at all. (3)
Although chickenpox and whooping cough were noticeably less common among the vaccinated, they paid a high price in terms of health: They were far more likely than the unvaccinated to suffer from allergic rhinitis (30 times higher risk), learning disabilities (5.2 times), ADHD and autism (4.2 times each), allergies (3.9 times), neurodevelopmental disorders (3.7 times), and dermatitis (2.9 times). The fully vaccinated group was also at a significant disadvantage when it came to pneumonia (6.4% versus 1.2%) and ear infections (19.8% versus 5.8%). Partially vaccinated children generally achieved “a middle position.”
In the same year, Mawson confirmed these results in a follow-up study. (4)
The Hooker/Miller Studies: “Pricks” in the First Year of Life Are Particularly Fatal
Brian Hooker is hardly lacking in scientific expertise. After all, he is Professor Emeritus of Biology at Simpson University in Redding, California. Together with science writer Neil Miller, he examined the disease rates of 2,047 children from three American medical practices. (5)
Born between 2005 and 2015, the children were 3 to 12 years old at the time of the study. 69% had been vaccinated against any disease in their first year of life, while 31% had not.
To ensure that a disorder or illness actually followed the vaccination—and did not precede it—the authors included only those that occurred after the child’s first birthday.
For all diagnoses for which reliable data were available, the research team found that children who were spared any “jabs” in their first twelve months of life were far less likely to become ill. At the age of five, the likelihood of developmental delays and ear infections was more than twice as high among those vaccinated early, and 4.5 times higher for asthma.
One year later, in 2021, Hooker and Miller conducted a second study, this time with data from 1,565 children. (6) Of these, 8.7% were fully vaccinated—i.e., “correctly” according to the vaccination schedule—30.9% were partially vaccinated, and 60.4% were not vaccinated at all. Fully vaccinated children were significantly more likely to suffer from asthma (17.6% versus 4.9%), gastrointestinal disorders (13.8% versus 2.5%), and chronic ear infections (27.8% versus 2.13%). Severe allergies, autism, and ADHD were also much more common among them.
The Lyons-Weiler/Thomas study: Vaccinated children visit the doctor much more often
Together with scientist James Lyons-Weiler, Dr. Paul Thomas, a pediatrician from Portland, Oregon, conducted a study of 3,324 young patients he cared for in his practice over the course of more than ten years. (7) They compared the number of doctor visits for vaccinated and unvaccinated children. How often did Thomas see them for specific diagnoses? Whether it was for asthma, hay fever, or allergic rhinitis (an inflammation of the nasal mucosa), eczema, dermatitis, urticaria (hives), conjunctivitis, weight/eating disorders, anemia, respiratory infections, ADHD, or autism, vaccinated children visited the doctor significantly more often with all of these problems.
Overall, the data allowed only one conclusion: “Unvaccinated children are generally healthier than vaccinated children.”
Amazingly, the doctor found a respected journal that published his peer-reviewed findings. But just five days after publication, he lost his medical license, claiming he posed a “threat” to public health. His study report was promptly retracted.
The “Control Group” Study: Completely Unvaccinated People Are Far Healthier
A fifth highly exciting study (8) comes from The Control Group, an American citizens’ initiative whose goal is to “conduct realistic and controlled research and documentation on the effects of vaccinations—in search of the truth about the health and well-being of our children, our families, our friends, and ourselves.”
No less than 99.74% of the US population is vaccinated. Only 0.26%—an estimated 832,000 Americans—have not yet received any vaccine. From this minority, the researchers drew a sample of 0.178%—a total of 1,482 children and adults from 48 US states. The question was: How frequently do serious illnesses occur among these completely unvaccinated children compared to the vaccinated majority? Their health status can be seen in publicly available national statistics.
Once again, it was clearly demonstrated: Unvaccinated children, regardless of age, are healthier – by a long shot.
One in two vaccinated children now suffers from chronic health conditions; in 2010, the number was only 27%. Asthma, eczema, food allergies, tinnitus, eye misalignment, ADHD, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and cystic fibrosis are many times more common among them. The probability of at least one such diagnosis is 3.5 times higher than among unvaccinated children. The probability of being affected by multiple chronic diseases is even 5.7 times higher.
Because vaccinations impose a cumulative burden on adults over a lifetime, their health situation is even more worrying. They are 9.5 times more likely to suffer from chronic diseases such as asthma and arthritis, as well as some of the leading causes of death, such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and respiratory disease. They are 43 times more likely to have two chronic diseases, and 12% of them even have five.
Vaccinated individuals, in general, across all age groups, experienced 44 times more digestive disorders and 207 times more chronic sinusitis or sinus infections.
Particularly astonishing is the spectrum of diseases that were not found at all in the unvaccinated subjects. Not a single baby in the families studied died of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and not a single one developed cancer. Unvaccinated adults showed no ADHD, asthma, arthritis, diabetes, heart disease, or malignant tumors.
“So what do all these data mean?” asks US physician Peter McCullough in an excellent video documentary, promptly censored by Facebook and YouTube, in which he summarizes the studies mentioned. “Quite simply, They suggest that vaccines lead to a sicker life overall. In fact, it is the unvaccinated whose lives are generally blessed with excellent health and few doctor visits.”
The RKI Lies – It Covers Up Its Own Findings
The high risk posed by vaccinations was – involuntarily – demonstrated by Germany’s highest health authority, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI). From 2003 to 2006, it conducted a complex long-term study (“KiGGS”) on the physical and mental health of children and adolescents between the ages of 0 and 17. The 17,641 study participants and their parents completed a comprehensive questionnaire, doctors conducted interviews with them, blood and urine samples were analyzed – and vaccination records were copied, where available. Just one year after completing the data collection, the RKI presented the results in the Federal Health Gazette on over 900 pages. It made the raw data available to interested parties as a “public use file” for a nominal fee of 90 euros. (9)
That’s how much the whole thing was worth to Angelika Müller. The computer scientist, mother of four, and head of the interest group “Parents for Vaccination Information” meticulously examined the RKI material – approximately 1,500 data values per participant. She discovered “grossly inaccurate analyses,” manipulated numbers, and concealed correlations.
The truth revealed by the RKI raw data exceeded her worst fears. Vaccinated children suffer from atopic dermatitis and hay fever almost twice as often, and nickel allergies are five times more common. (See below, Fig. 1.) They are more frequently diagnosed with ADHD. They are more susceptible to infections, require glasses more often, and require speech therapy from a speech therapist (Figs. 2, 3). Middle ear infections and pneumonia occur more frequently in them. (Fig. 4)
Not a single unvaccinated child, but 5.3% of vaccinated children, have a twisted or curved spine (see Fig. 4). What could vaccinations have to do with scoliosis? Among the possible contributing causes, which are mentioned as a side effect in almost all vaccine package inserts, are nerve disorders, so-called neuropathies. Constantly misdirected tension in the muscles near the spine could lead to misalignment of the vertebrae over time.
Surprisingly, vaccinated children are significantly more susceptible to chickenpox and scarlet fever – the very infectious diseases from which a “shot” is supposed to protect them (Fig. 5). Measles, mumps, and rubella are somewhat less common in vaccinated children (Fig. 6) – but should they even occur? Of every 100 MMR-vaccinated children, 10 contract measles, four contract mumps, and eight contract rubella.
Angelika Müller’s conclusion is accordingly clear: “Unvaccinated children are healthier in every respect than vaccinated children.” (10)
The connection between health status and vaccination status is documented – involuntarily – by the KiGG5 study of the Robert Koch Institute, as computer scientist Angelika Mueller discovered in an analysis of the RKI data.
The Robert Koch Institute soon demonstrated once again, between 2005 and 2008, how brazenly scientists and authorities can trick people into providing favorable statistics with the TOKEN study on the safety of infant vaccinations. Its ambitious claim: It was to comprehensively record all unexplained cases of “sudden infant death syndrome” (SIDS) between two and 24 months of age that occurred between the summer of 2005 and the summer of 2008 – and to examine whether these deaths were related to previous vaccinations. Even the financing of the study was suspicious: For a sponsorship fee of €2.5 million, the manufacturers of two vaccines to be tested, Sanofi Pasteur and GlaxoSmithKline, purchased the right to be “immediately informed of relevant results or evaluations” – and to be “given the opportunity to provide scientific commentary on the texts intended for publication” before they were published.
Only 254 cases were included in the analysis, in which affected parents were willing to complete a comprehensive questionnaire. Of 667 mothers and fathers whose children died during the study period, two-thirds refused to participate despite repeated attempts to contact them. Why, I wonder? Who, after such a painful loss, is still eager to satisfy the curiosity of data collectors?
Last but not least, the TOKEN study managed the feat of simultaneously delivering two opposed findings: the official one and one that only emerged upon analysis of the baseline data – the RKI concealed it in the 160-page extended version of the study report, which it made available only in English. As expected, the short German version gave the all-clear: the vaccines are harmless – it appears that inattentive, careless parents are more likely to be to blame for the deaths. In doing so, the RKI emphasized insignificant but convenient details in its reporting, and instead of simply counting SIDS cases, it “weighted” them until politically correct conclusions emerged.
A closer look at the RKI data shows:
– In the first 14 days after vaccination, a SIDS case is three times more likely than in the following weeks.
– Three days after a six-in-one vaccination, the risk of death is increased by 2- to 3-fold; after a five-in-one immunization, it is even increased by 8.1-fold.
– During the second year of life, the probability of dying within 72 hours of vaccination increases by almost 14-fold.
According to the RKI, it is a “fact” that “vaccinations are particularly important for infants and young children,” which is why they should be administered “as early as possible.” At least the shareholders of vaccine manufacturers would likely agree.
How do vaccines make you sick?
How do vaccines work? The principle seems simple and logical. In “active vaccination,” the body receives weakened, still-viable pathogens (“live vaccines”), killed pathogens, or merely fragments of them (“inactivated vaccines”). Both approaches are intended to stimulate the body to produce antibodies against them. In “passive vaccination,” a serum is injected that already contains such antibodies in high concentrations.
In this way, it is said, vaccinations train the immune system for an emergency: an infection with dangerous bacteria or viruses. If it occurs, it can fight it off because it already has the necessary antibodies.
Parents give their children the “shot” because this explanation makes sense to them. But they only know half the truth. For one thing, vaccines carry the risk of causing the very disease they are supposed to protect against. (This happens regularly, for example, in polio vaccination campaigns.) On the other hand, many other ingredients enter the body with vaccines – into the blood, the brain, and all other organs. Doctors tend to ignore these during pre-consultation sessions. At most, the questionable substances appear in the package insert. They are strongly suspected of being responsible for a large portion of the vaccine injuries that manufacturers and authorities sweep under the rug.
Between 2017 and 2019, the “Working Group on Civil Rights and Health” (AGBUG) commissioned independent laboratories to examine what actually goes into the syringes. 83 vaccines, many of which are still on the market, were examined. The findings are shocking: Almost all vaccines contain traces of aluminum and mercury. In addition, foreign proteins, hormones, and metabolites from manufacturing processes infect non-human cell cultures, chicken eggs, or laboratory animals. Antibiotics, pesticides, and undeclared nanoparticles have also been found. They often turn out to be contaminated with viruses from the cell cultures on which they were grown: from variants of the swine virus to SV-40 – from kidney cells of rhesus monkeys – to viruses from chicken cells that can cause leukemia in birds.
How harmless are these ingredients in the long term? Safety checks are pending, and regulations are lacking. Apart from concerned parents, no one seems interested in taking a closer look.
Among those suspected of causing illness are so-called “adjuvants” (from the Latin adiuvare, “to support “): artificial substances without which the immune response would be too weak to build lasting immunity.
Highly toxic aluminum remains the most commonly used adjuvant. It increases the permeability of the blood-brain barrier, causing a variety of neurological disorders, chronic inflammation, and autoimmune diseases; it can lead to macrophage myofasciitis (MMF), a particularly insidious muscle disease. Newer adjuvants such as “AS04” or “MF59” contain squalene and polysorbate 80. In laboratory tests, they produce MS symptoms, promote tumors, and cause the protective myelin sheaths around nerve cells to degenerate, as well as the intestinal mucosa. Like aluminum, they trigger autoimmune diseases such as arthritis and lupus erythematosus. They cause sexual organs to mature more rapidly, while simultaneously impairing their function. (11)
Preservatives in vaccines are also highly questionable. Phenoxyethanol, a chemical used to euthanize fish and extend the shelf life of body and beauty care products, is now being used as a replacement for the previously common mercury. As can be seen from cosmetics manufacturers’ databases, phenoxyethanol can cause allergies, skin rashes, neurological diseases, immune deficiencies, and organ damage. In animal experiments, it causes genetic defects and cancer. The safety data sheet states it must not be disposed of in household waste or groundwater.
In such “minimal” quantities as in vaccines, where applicable limits are far exceeded, the aforementioned additives are completely “harmless,” health authorities claim. A calculator is all it takes to understand how brazenly we are being deceived about the dangers of aluminum in vaccines. According to EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, the tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of aluminum is one milligram per kilogram of body weight. (12) However, we ingest food orally, and our body absorbs only 0.1% of the aluminum it contains – in contrast, 100% when injected into a muscle or directly into the blood. Therefore, the limit should be closer to 0.001 mg. The aluminum content of vaccines approved in Europe is between 0.125 and 0.82 mg per “shot.” With an injection of 0.8 mg, a five-kilogram infant, therefore, absorbs around 160 times (0.8 : 0.005) the maximum permitted weekly dose. Extrapolated over the entire year – 1 mg times 52 weeks times 7 kg (average body weight) – the limit is exceeded by more than double with just one six-in-one vaccination. No reason to worry? Why is “ASIA,” the “autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants,” now considered a separate disease in medicine?
The earlier, the more—the worse
As recently as 1970, the Robert Koch Institute recommended a single dose of vaccine for the first twelve months, followed by five more by the age of six. Three and a half decades later, in 2006, this had increased to 30 before the first birthday and another ten in the five following years. And today? A child in Germany is now required to be vaccinated against 17 different infectious diseases “at the earliest possible time.” Including “boosters” requires a whopping 53 vaccine doses before reaching adulthood – 37 of which are in the first year of life.
The vaccination trend is even more frenzied in the United States. According to the CDC’s vaccination calendar (13), children should receive at least 73 vaccinations against 17 different diseases; they must receive 28 injections by their first birthday alone. By just two months of age, a baby can receive up to six vaccinations against eight diseases. As recently as 1962, the vaccination schedule for the entire childhood provided for only five doses of vaccine: against polio, smallpox, diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough. (14) The pharmaceutical industry currently has over a hundred more vaccines in the pipeline in Europe alone (15) – it dreams of this kind of “preventive medicine.”
Numerous studies clearly demonstrate the impact of such health “protection” to anyone willing to see: The earlier and more often children are “pricked,” the greater their risk of health problems, serious chronic illnesses, and premature death. (16) This trend has long been evident in all industrialized countries.
Why is the USA, the world champion in vaccination, ranked far behind in 55th place in terms of infant mortality, even behind the Maldives, Russia, and Cuba? (Germany ranks 25th.) The leader, with the lowest rate, is Montenegro: There, an average of 1.46 per 1,000 newborns die each year, compared to 6.3 in the USA (3.6 in Germany). In Montenegro, less than half of the population believes vaccines are effective and safe – in the United States, however, three-quarters do.
Although the USA spends by far the most money on children’s health, the likelihood of a baby dying of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) in its first year is 76% higher there than in 19 other wealthy countries. (17) In March and April 2020, when no babies were presenting for a jab at a doctor’s office due to coronavirus lockdowns, the SIDS rate in the United States fell by around 35%.
What happens to such information? Facebook blocks it. Twitter deletes it. Google hides it. YouTube bans them. The media remains silent about them – or brands them as conspiracy theories. Talk shows gloss over them; news programs ignore them. This fuels the suspicion that they are true.
Why are doctors silent?
Why don’t doctors who vaccinate inform their patients about them? Because they themselves need to be informed. Why? Because they learn just as little about the risks and dangers of vaccination during their studies, in lectures by professors on the pharmaceutical company payroll, as they do from textbooks written by pharmaceutical-funded authors; neither in pharmaceutical-sponsored continuing education events and conferences nor from pharmaceutical-funded journals, online information portals, and statements from professional organizations. (18)
If a doctor once again pressures you to have your child vaccinated immediately, Recommend the following two books to them – and promise to agree to the jab as soon as they have read and convincingly refuted the approximately 500 studies presented therein:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Brian Hooker: Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated – Now the Science Speaks! (2023)
Neil Z. Miller: The Big Vaccination Report – 400 Critical Studies for Parents and Researchers (2021)
Actually, every doctor should already be familiar with them before they disregard their patients’ fundamental right to physical integrity. How can they obtain your “informed consent” when they themselves lack crucial information to consider? Don’t be afraid to disrespectfully test their competence – after all, nothing less than your child’s future is at stake. Anyone who questions them appears clueless. Anyone who chooses not to do so will remain so. Have them sign the “Medical Vaccination Declaration” drafted by the Swiss “Network for Vaccination Decisions”—a doctor aware of their responsibility should not hesitate.
Preventing harm to the population is not just a matter for doctors, by the way. The Federal President, the Chancellor, and every member of the government, especially the Minister of Health, take their oath of office to do so. Where are the government research initiatives to finally provide clarity?
Why are health authorities resisting this, especially the Robert Koch Institute?
Lazy Excuses
We are led to believe that conducting extensive research is unnecessary – because, as we all know, the probability of serious side effects is just “one in a million.”
To administer this tranquilizer, authorities compare the total number of vaccinated people to the group of people whose vaccine injuries have been recognized by the state and led to compensation payments. This is indeed a vanishing minority – which is no surprise to anyone who knows what harassing, time-consuming, and nerve-wracking hurdles vaccine victims have to overcome to get their rights. Serious studies estimate the rate of adverse side effects at closer to 1 in 38 (19), even 1 in 10. (20)
We are assured that the highest-quality scientific studies are used to assess risks: randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In these studies, test subjects are randomly divided into two groups: one receives the drug (the “active group”), the other only a placebo (the “control group”). To eliminate expectation effects, all participants are “blinded”: they remain unaware of which group they belong to.
For the comparison to be meaningful, the RCT design stipulates that a placebo must be “inert,” meaning it has no pharmacological effect, such as neutral saline solution. However, scandalously, in most vaccine studies, the control groups do not use actual placebos at all, but rather other vaccines. Or the placebo contains the same ingredients, except for the respective antigens, i.e., without the viruses or bacterial components against which antibodies are supposed to be formed: from aluminum to formaldehyde to polysorbate 80. This was the case with Gardasil, a vaccine against the human papillomavirus, which supposedly causes cervical cancer: It was allowed to compete against AAHS, a highly toxic adjuvant. (Adjuvants are substances added to vaccines to elicit a “more robust immune response” than the antigen alone would elicit.) A meningococcal vaccine was used to “control” a flu vaccine in pregnant women. (21) Such a preposterous trick, essentially a clumsy fraud, regularly results in the adverse effects profile of the tested substance appearing comparatively harmless because the placebo group is also poisoned—to the understandable delight of the manufacturers, who usually finance such pseudo-studies.
Furthermore, other analytical methods are available that deliver equally reliable results, whether they are prospective, focused on future health outcomes, or retrospective, which evaluates existing medical data. (22) Health authorities routinely use such procedures. Only when it comes to vaccination do they suddenly become wary of using them?
It is often said that comparative studies between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals are “unethical.” Placebo control would require withholding a drug that “may prevent a serious, untreatable, or fatal infection” from some of the test subjects, as stated on the website of a children’s hospital. (23) This is irresponsible under any circumstances. But the same argument can be made for all drug trials: How can one refrain from giving patients in the control group a new heart or cancer drug that could potentially save their lives? The fact that vaccination advocates suddenly become seriously concerned with moral concerns only in vaccine trials points to an agenda that has precious little to do with science and logic.
The ethical argument is also absurd because, before an RCT study begins, we don’t even know how a vaccine works. Is it more of a blessing than a curse for the active group? Would it, therefore, be more beneficial than harmful for the control group to also receive it? This is precisely what we have to find out.
Vaccinated and unvaccinated children are not comparable, they argue, simply because they grow up in different social environments that significantly influence their health development. If unvaccinated children are less likely to get sick, it may be due less to their parents’ vaccine skepticism than to their parenting behavior. Perhaps they are more concerned about their offspring, take symptoms more seriously, provide more attentive care when they are ill, take them to the doctor more quickly if necessary, and ensure better nutrition and more exercise.
This argument is hard to beat in terms of oddity. Doesn’t it rather suggest the following recommendation? “Dear moms and dads, if you want healthy children – take anti-vaccine parents as your role models!”
It is from Anthony Fauci, America’s vaccine guru, and Big Pharma darling for decades, of all people, that this dire warning comes: If regulatory authorities fail to monitor the longer-term effects of vaccinations, “it could turn out that it takes twelve years for all hell to break loose—and what will have been done by then?” (24) He’s right.
But “hell” has long since arrived. “For 225 years, the same story has been repeating itself,” as American internist Dr. Suzanne Humphries notes (25): “Vaccines come along and exacerbate diseases that weren’t actually very problematic before. (…) The narrative of the ‘safe and effective’ vaccination is a carefully crafted illusion. (…) It’s a dark night of the soul when you wake up. Your whole world is falling apart because you realize that the entire medical system is corrupt.” US holistic physician Joseph Mercola agrees: “The vaccine industry is deliberately misleading us about the risks and benefits of vaccines in order to profit, without regard for human suffering and the destruction of public health over time.” (26)
“Sometimes people ask me, ‘What’s the motivation? Why are they doing this?'” says Humphries. “My answer is that I can’t fully answer the why. Certainly greed plays a role, but I think there are probably much worse things at play.” (27)
Sponsored by the pharmaceutical lobby (28), the World Health Organization considers anti-vaccine advocates like Humphries and Mercola a “global threat.” It lists vaccine hesitancy among the “ten most serious threats to human health.” Seriously? Rather, the current state of research suggests that abandoning vaccine hesitancy would be far more dangerous. In most cases, infections don’t overcome the immune system but rather strengthen it. Those who persistently neglect it are most likely to fear it.
Since the coronavirus crisis, we have known that fear endangers health, while knowledge strengthens the immune system.
(Harald Wiesendanger)
Support “Ways Out Charity“! With your support, we can help and move forward. > https://bit.ly/3wuNgdO
Notes
Q) Primärquelle zu Sa’Niya: Children´s Health Defense, deren Redaktion Sa’Niyas Angehörige interviewte. Dem tragischen Fall widmete das CHD einen längeren Artikel https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/baby-sa-niya-death-received-6-shots-12-vaccines/?utm_id=20250331 sowie einen 26-minütigen Film https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/trending-news-segments/baby-tragically-dies-after-6-shots/
Bild Sa’Niya: Ausschnitt aus einem Screenshot einer Szene aus dem o.g. Film von Children´s Health Defense.
1 Zur Sechsfach-Impfung – gegen Diphtherie, Tetanus, Pertussis, Poliomyelitis, Haemophilus influenzae Typ b und Hepatitis B – kommen neuerdings Impfungen gegen Rotaviren, Meningokokken und Pneumokokken.
2 https://www.unicef.de/informieren/aktuelles/blog/-/elf-dinge-ueber-impfungen-zur-weltimpfwoche/275230; https://www.ardalpha.de/wissen/gesundheit/gesund-leben/die-erfolgsgeschichte-des-impfens-impfung-100.html
3 Anthony R. Mawson u.a.: “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. Children “, Journal of Translational Science 3 (3) 2017, S. 1-12, DOI: 10.15761/JTS.1000186,
4 Anthony R. Mawson u.a.: “Preterm Birth, Vaccination and Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study of 6- to 12-Year-Old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children “, Journal of Translational Science 3 (3) 2017, S. 1-8, DOI:10.15761/JTS.1000187
5 Brian Hooker/Neil Z. Miller: “Analysis of Health Outcomes in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children: Developental Delays, Asthma, Ear Infections, and Gastrointestinal Disorders “, SAGE Open Medicine 8/2020, DOI:10.1177/2050312120925344
6 Brian Hooker/Neil Z. Miller: “Health Effects in Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated Children “, Journal of Translational Science 7/2021, S. 1-11, DOI:10.15761/JTS.1000459
7 James Lyons-Weiler/Paul Thomas: “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses along the Axis of Vaccination,” International Journal of Environmental Reseach and Public Health 17 (22) 2020, 8674, DOI:10.3390/ijerph17228674,
8 Joy Garner: “The Control Group: Pilot Survey of Unvaccinated Americans. Statistical Evaluation of Health Outcomes in the Unvaccinated: Full Report “, 9. Februar 2021
9 Public-Use-File KiGGS, Kinder- und Jugendgesundheitssurvey 2003-2006, Robert-Koch-Institut, Berlin 2008
10 https://efi-online.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/UngeimpfteGesuender.pdf, S. 6.
11 Siehe zusammenfassend Harald Wiesendanger: Das Gesundheitsunwesen, a.a.O, S. 334 ff. und die dort zitierten Quellen.
12 Europäische Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit (EFSA), EFSA-Beratung zur Sicherheit von Aluminium in Lebensmitteln, 15. Juli 2008, abrufbar unter https://www.efsa.europa.eu/de/news/efsa-advises-safety-aluminium-food.
13 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “Birth-18 Years Immunization Schedule “
14 Siehe Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Brian Hooker: Geimpft versus ungeimpft – Jetzt spricht die Wissenschaft! (2023), S. 20,
15 https://web.oevih.at/unser_fokus/forschungsausblick-impfstoff-pipeline/; https://pharma-fakten.de/grafiken/rsv-grippe-covid-19-und-co-neue-loesungen-dank-impfstoffforschung-in-sicht/
16 Siehe Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Brian Hooker: Geimpft versus ungeimpft – Jetzt spricht die Wissenschaft! (2023), S. 34-61
17 https://www.klartext-online.info/post/damit-sein-tod-nicht-sinnlos-war; https://www.klartext-online.info/post/blo%C3%9F-ein-piks-zwei-tage-sp%C3%A4ter-tot
18 Siehe Harald Wiesendanger: Das Gesundheitsunwesen – Wie wir es durchschauen, überleben und verwandeln (2019) sowie die zehnteilige Serie „Dressierte Halbgötter“ in seinem Blog „Klartext“
19 Ross Lazarus u.a.: „Electronic Support for Public Health-Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP: VAERS), The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Mech2011
20 Kennedy/Hooker: Geimpft versus ungeimpft, a.a.O., S. 6.
21 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4985566/, DOI.10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30054-8
22 DOI:10.1002/14651858. MR000034.pub2, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8191367/
23 The College of Physicians of Philadelphia: “Vaccines 101: Ethical Issues and Vaccines “
24 Nova, PBS, “Surviving AIDS “, 2. Februar 1999.
25 Suzanne Humphries/Roman Bystrianyk: Die Impf-Illusion. Infektionskrankheiten, Impfungen und die unterdrückten Fakten (2015)
26 Joseph Mercola in mercola.com, 25. Februar 2024
27 Elizabeth Humphries im Interview mit Joseph Mercola: „Dissolving Illusions About Vaccine Safety“
28 Wolfgang Wodarg: Falsche Pandemien, 2. Aufl. 2021, S. 314 ff.