What's Behind Big Media's Vaccine Propaganda Onslaught?: Forced Mass Vaccination On Adults Planned Under 'National Adult Immunization Plan'

The National Adult Immunization Plan

Adapted by Ronald David Jackson from a  Photo by Jamiecat.

By Prof. James F. Tracy

The transnational pharmaceutical cartel will be positioning itself to profit handsomely if a federally-mandated adult immunization program becomes law. The proposed US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) policy will be implemented alongside the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), thereby becoming a standard component of US national healthcare policy.

Published on February 6, 2015 amid the “measles outbreak” media frenzy, the HHS is accepting “public comment” on its Draft National Adult Immunization Plan (NAIP) until March 9, 2015. Under the NAIP, all adult American citizens will be compelled to receive current and retroactive vaccination regimens that may amount to several dozen “shots” per individual during their “catch-up” phase. Under the federally-mandated immunization schedule children presently receive 49 vaccines before the age of six.

The NAIP underscores how

[t]he adult schedule … includes catch-up vaccinations for those adults who never initiated or did not complete a multi-dose series when vaccination was first recommended during childhood. Catch-up vaccinations include vaccines such as measles, mumps, rubella and varicella, which are routinely recommended for administration during childhood (p. 1).

The NAIP is intended to supplement the National Vaccine Plan (NVP), published in conjunction with the ACA. The HHS describes the NVP as “a guiding vision for vaccination for the decade 2010-2020 and strategic direction for coordination of the immunization enterprise in the United States” (NAIP, p. 9), by highlighting the alleged public health problem posed by the low vaccination rates of US adults.

___________________

How can forced vaccinations of adults be accomplished?: The same way it is done in school systems -- either you prove you are vaccinated or you won't be allowed to attend school.  This has already been done at hospitals where nurses are often forced to get flu vaccinations of dubious value or face losing their jobs. Members of the military were forced to take a coctail of vaccinations during the Gulf Wars that were subsequently implicated as a cause of the "Gulf War Syndrome." Ohio State University, for example, has just instituted a policy where all incoming students will be required to get vaccinations — those who can't prove they have been vaccinated will not be allowed to attend: See ""Ohio State to require vaccinations for incoming students"" 

___________________

“[T]he NAIP is intended to promote coordinated planning and action across all stakeholder groups,” the 52-page document reads, “[i]ncluding those within and outside of the federal government” (p. 6). In addition to the health and personnel-related agencies within HHS’ purview, such as the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration, other government and “stakeholder groups” include the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the “vaccine industry” and “academic/research organizations” (p. 7).

Given the frequent and serious side effects of vaccines routinely documented in the inserts accompanying them, the government appears to be waging a high stakes game with public health under the guise of prevention that will soon extend to the entire US adult population.

The NAIP is unambiguous in its ambition and intent. “The vision for adult immunization is to protect the public health and achieve optimal prevention of infectious diseases and their consequences through vaccination of all adults” (emphasis retained, p. 6).

The NAIP was developed in coordination with the RAND Corporation, whose services were “enlisted to review historic literature, interview stakeholders, and collect plan date to identify plan priorities and key indicators” (p. 8).

Specific “subgroups of adults” will be particularly targeted for vaccination, “such as healthcare workers and pregnant women.”

HHS lists four specific objectives in its NAIP policy. The subpoint strategies of each goal are summarized below, although it should be noted that the original document contains highly detailed strategies for achieving each (pp. 11-25) .

1: Strengthen the adult immunization infrastructure.

Objective 1.1: Monitor and report trends in adult vaccine-preventable disease levels and vaccination coverage data for all ACIP-recommended vaccines. In cases where there are associated Healthy People 2020 goals, measure progress toward established targets.

Objective 1.2: Enhance current vaccine safety monitoring systems and develop new methods to accurately and more rapidly assess vaccine safety and effectiveness in adult populations (e.g., pregnant women).

Objective 1.3: Continue to analyze claims filed as part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) to identify potential causal links between vaccines and adverse events.

Objective 1.4: Increase the use of electronic health records (EHRs) and immunization information systems (IIS) to collect and track adult immunization data.

Objective 1.5: Evaluate and advance targeted quality improvement initiatives.

Objective 1.6: Generate and disseminate evidence about the health and economic impact of adult immunization, including potential disease burden averted and cost-effectiveness with the use of current vaccines.

2: Improve access to adult vaccines.

Objective 2.1: Reduce financial barriers for individuals who receive vaccines routinely recommended for adults.

Objective 2.2: Assess and improve understanding of providers’ financial barriers to delivering vaccinations, including to stocking and administering vaccines.

Objective 2.3: Expand the adult immunization provider network.

Objective 2.4: Ensure a reliable supply of vaccines and the ability to track vaccine inventories, including during public health emergencies.

3. Increase community demand for adult immunizations.

Objective 3.1: Educate and encourage individuals to be aware of and receive recommended adult immunizations.

Objective 3.2: Educate, encourage, and motivate health care professionals to recommend and/or deliver adult vaccinations.

Objective 3.3: Educate and encourage other groups (e.g., community and faith-based groups, tribal organizations)to promote the importance of adult immunization.

4: Foster innovation in adult vaccine development and vaccination-related technologies.

Objective 4.1: Develop new vaccines and improve the effectiveness of existing vaccines for adults.

Objective 4.2: Encourage new technologies to improve the distribution, storage, and delivery of adult vaccines.

Despite religious and philosophical exemptions from vaccines offered in almost every state, not to mention the abundant side effects–including possible carcinogenesis–associated with such substances, roughly 95% of American families subject their children to the federally-mandated immunization schedule. Under the NAIP, government bureaucrats and the vaccine industry are now poised to foist a similarly intensive yet scientifically dubious program on the entire US population.

Reprinted with permission from Center for Research in Globalization.

Health Effects of Vaccines: 'Mercury in Medicine' — Investigative Report Published in the Congressional Record

Photograph by Melissa Wiese.

By Ronald David Jackson
The following "Mercury in Medicine" report was added to the Congressional Record on May 20, 2003.  The report was prepared by the staff of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness, Committee on Government Reform. The report is the result of a three-year investigation initiated in the Committee on Government Reform. The key findings of the investigation are highlighted with black outlines and in some cases with black and yellow outlines. Some of the key findings include:

1) No one knows for sure if vaccines are safe or unsafe because while there are studies comparing health outcomes in those who did and did not get the vaccine (epidemiological studies) - the vaccines themselves (and more importantly, the various ingredients in the vaccines) have never been thoroughly tested for safety in humans. Specifically: "The FDA [Food and Drug Administration] has never required manufacturers to conduct adequate safety testing on thimerosal and ethylmercury compounds."

2) As the rate of autism has grown at epidemic proportions during the last two decades, the number of childhood vaccines containing thimerosal was growing, increasing the amount of ethylmercury to which infants were exposed threefold.

3) The Institute of Medicine (an American non-profit, non-governmental organization founded in 1970) determined that a relationship between autism, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, and speech or language delay, and the increased use of thimerosal in vaccines is plausible and deserves more scrutiny (even though there was not enough evidence to support or reject this hypothesis).

4) In 1998, the FDA finalized a rule requiring that ethylmercury be removed from over-the-counter products like topical ointments and skin creams (suggesting that ethylmercury—used as a preservative in many vaccines—could be hazardous to health) . Yet it took the FDA 18 years to get around to doing this, even though an advisory committee determined that ethylmercury was unsalfe in these products in 1980.

5) The FDA and the CDC [Center for Disease Control] failed in their duty to be vigilant as new vaccines containing thimerosal were approved and added to the immunization schedule. When the Hepatitis B and Haemophilus Influenzae Type B vaccines were added to the recommended schedule of childhood immunizations, the cumulative amount of ethylmercury to which children were exposed nearly tripled.

6) The amount of ethylmercury to which children were exposed through vaccines exceeded the safety thresholds established by the Federal government for a closely related substance methylmercury, "experts agree that the methylmercury guidelines are a good substitute."

7) Federal health officials have conceded that the amount of thimerosal in vaccines exceeded the EPA threshold of 0.1 micrograms per kilogram of bodyweight. "In fact, the amount of mercury in one dose of DTaP or Hepatitis B vaccines (25 micrograms each) exceeded this threshold many times over.

8) The FDA has: a) Failed to require the pharmaceutical industry to conduct extensive safety studies on thimerosal or ethylmercury. b) Failed to require the pharmaceutical industry to conduct adequate testing to determine how thimerosal is metabolized. c) Failed to require the pharmaceutical industry to determine the maximum safe exposure level to thimerosal.

9) Over the course of two decades the FDA slowly removed ethylmercury from many medicinal products - WHY?

10) In June of 2000, the CDC's Advisory Committe on Immunization Practice met in Atlanta. One of the key factors that weighed against a recommendation for a preference for thimerosal-free vaccines was the financial health of the vaccine industry. A recommendation for thimerosal-free vaccine had "the potential for financial losses of existing inventories", "could harm one or more manufacturers and may then decreased the number of suppliers", and "could entail financial losses for all existing stocks of vaccines that contain thimerosal."

It appears that protecting the industry's profits took precedent over protecting children from mercury damage.

Mercury in Medicine

Are Flu Vaccines Tested and Safe?: The Insert That Comes With The Flu Vaccine Might Shock You

A beautiful box for the flu vaccine. But doctors almost never give you the insert that came with the vaccine: Why?

"And now some words from our sponsor (GlaxoSmithKline)" — via the package insert:

"There have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with Flulaval."

"Safety and effectiveness of Flulaval have not been established in pregnant women, nursing mothers or children."

"Safety and effectiveness of Flulaval in pediatric patients have not been established."

"Flulaval has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential [cancer causation] , or for impairment of fertility."

"Do not administer Flulaval to anyone... following previous administration of any influenza vaccine."

 

________________

________________

Possible Adverse Effects Include:

• Eye pain and chest pain
• Arthritis
• Dizziness, tremors and losing consciousness (syncope)
• Convulsions and seizures
• Gullain-Barre Syndrome
• Cranial nerve paralysis or limb paralysis
• Swelling of the brain
• Partial facial paralysis

A screen shot from the CDC's vaccine additives page, which miraculously hasn't yet been removed from their site:

Read More About What The Insert Says: HERE

Measles Outbreak Traced to 'Fully Vaccinated' Patient for First Time

"Measles" (Photo by Dave Haygarth)

By Nsikan Akpan
Get the measles vaccine, and you won’t get the measles—or give it to anyone else. Right? Well, not always. A person fully vaccinated against measles has contracted the disease and passed it on to others. The startling case study contradicts received wisdom about the vaccine and suggests that a recent swell of measles outbreaks in developed nations could mean more illnesses even among the vaccinated.

When it comes to the measles vaccine, two shots are better than one. Most people in the United States are initially vaccinated against the virus shortly after their first birthday and return for a booster shot as a toddler. Less than 1% of people who get both shots will contract the potentially lethal skin and respiratory infection. And even if a fully vaccinated person does become infected—a rare situation known as “vaccine failure”—they weren’t thought to be contagious.

That’s why a fully vaccinated 22-year-old theater employee in New York City who developed the measles in 2011 was released without hospitalization or quarantine. But like Typhoid Mary, this patient turned out to be unwittingly contagious. Ultimately, she transmitted the measles to four other people, according to a recent report in Clinical Infectious Diseases that tracked symptoms in the 88 people with whom “Measles Mary” interacted while she was sick. Surprisingly, two of the secondary patients had been fully vaccinated. And although the other two had no record of receiving the vaccine, they both showed signs of previous measles exposure that should have conferred immunity.

Read More

Vaccines — Did They Really Reduce Disease?: Disease Rates Plunged Before Mass Vaccination Programs (Study)

Mass vaccinations are given credit for a steep decrease in outbreaks of deadly diseases. 
But these charts show that these disease out- breaks had already run their course by
thetime "medical measures" like vaccines (see arrows) were introduced. (Charts
from the published scientific study: "The Questionable Contribution of Medical
Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century")

__________________

The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality
in the United States in the Twentieth Century

Super Mosquitoes May Be Created By Insecticide-Treated Nets

 Ugandan villagers are taught the importance of the use mosquito nets in the fight against the spread of malaria. (Photo by Sallyforthwit)

By Marissa Fessenden
Evolution’s mechanisms keep life on Earth mutable, adaptable and alive. But it also presents a stumbling block when we humans attempt to control nature. When confronted with penicillin, bacteria develop resistance to the formerly miraculous drug and its successors. When challenged repeatedly with the same potent herbicides, weeds become dreaded superweeds. Now, our efforts to drive back malaria-carrying mosquitoes have created bloodsuckers unaffected by insecticides.


Since 2000, deaths from malaria worldwide have fallen by 47 percent, according to the World Health Organization’s World Malaria Report. Much of that success in sub-Saharan Africa, where the brunt of that toll is exacted, can be attributed to the use of insecticide-treated nets. The Guardian reports that access to such nets in the region rose from 3 percent in 2002 to 49 percent in 2013. The article, written in December, states that the WHO report "estimates that 214m long-lasting insecticidal nets will have been delivered to the area by the end of this year, bringing the total number distributed in the area over the past two years to 427m."

That kind of firepower gets met by the inevitable mosquito march for survival. The malaria-carrying mosquito species Anopheles coluzzii has apparently interbred with another species Anopheles gambiae. The hybrids carry genes that give them resistance to the most commonly used insecticides, reports Arielle Duhaime-Ross for The Verge.

Alarmingly, the rise of insecticide-treated nets in Mali coincides neatly with the development of this resistance, researchers found. They published their work in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A.

Read More

Demilitarizing Epidemic Diseases in Africa: Instead of Sending Doctors To Defeat Ebola In Africa — US Sends Troops

cc RFI

By Narcisse Jean Alcide Nana
The international system has long become inured to the relentless hiccup of African insecurity malaise.

Major clichés and few strong allegories conjure up the spasms of this ongoing malaise to the point of oversimplifying the field of African security. A cascade of crises encapsulated by patterns of sociopolitical ‘fragility’, ‘failure’, and ‘vulnerabilities’ has been plying the continent’s security environment with regards to the HIV/AIDS pandemic, the Ebola outbreak in West and Central Africa, as well as the hydra of terrorism and bout of violent conflicts.

To be sure, the continent as a surrogate ideological battleground between Western democracies and a soviet-centric security dilemma has been put to rest. Noticeably today, a post 9-11 terror-centric security messianism has been perking up on Washington’s foreign policy chariot wheels in Africa. This security messianism is characterized by an insulated minimalist engagement riding on a missionary rhetorical commitment to African security.

Not surprisingly, the continent is broadly painted under a missionary diplomatic utopia that promises to terminate the ills of Africa. Putting aside some headier geopolitical matters, President Bush in July 2005, with an evangelical tone, made the confession that the U.S. ‘seek[s] progress in Africa because conscience demands it.’ Binding tightly moral imperatives with security concerns, Bush exited the White House cementing his signature legacy as the AIDS president. He left behind a strong savoury trademark of his long-standing gig to defeating the tides of malaria and AIDS on the continent. By the time he left the world stage, President Bush had increased aid to the continent by more than 640 percent. In humanitarian aid, the continent was the beneficiary of more than $5 billion a year. The $46 billion President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was instrumental for at least 2 million people who received antiretroviral drugs.

To be sure, the fine apostles of HIV/AIDS policy wonk have been battling out support for access to drugs and treatment for AIDS patients. As a result of this global battle, expensive treatment and drugs for AIDS had garnered public resources and attention as well. Ironically, expensive drugs and treatment have been raining down on environments without proper hospitals, qualified medical doctors, and poorly equipped clinics. While antiretroviral drugs are available to patients, the resources to training health workers and building schools of medicine have been drying up. Tellingly, American Ebola victims from the West and Central have to be flown home to Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta for treatment. Though the much-hyped PEPFAR project christened President Bush as the healer- in- chief on African shores, the everlasting romance between militarized health foreign policy and security is hard to disconnect. As a shining jewel on President Bush’s chest, PEPFAR stands out as a corporate bonanza for US pharmaceutical corporations to harvest safe vouchers from financial manna. Oil corporations such as Mobil Oil and Chevron own a share of some HIV-medicine patents and medication. Not only had US foreign policy aid to HIV made vast profit for US firms, but it softly tied up HIV/AIDS’ industrial headquarters to oil corporations and the creation of the unified command for Africa to oversee security and conduct military operations as necessary.

Of course, the hotly touted Obama’s West African foreign policy pledged a major US military-led surge to stop the Ebola virus as a global health and national security threat. Far from throwing a monkey wrench on military expansion, such a foreign policy vision has not divorced from a militarized version of epidemic diseases. On September 16, 2014, President Obama made public his decision to establish a joint military command headquarters in Liberia by quickly dispatching 3,000 US troops to Monrovia and Senegal. The Ebola outbreak crafted its own response to the military footprint on the continent. The Obama administration pledged $ 1.26 billion to fighting against Ebola that has already claimed more than 2,800 lives in West Africa. The crisis has spurred the opportunity to hew a close look at some nichified source of security fixes in order to reinforce the post-9-11 security quandaries.

President Obama’s quick policy stand is not unprecedented. The root of the militarization of Washington foreign policy goes back to 1947 with the Cold War. The National Security Act of 1947 amends the US armed forces as intrinsically embedded with national security policy in peacetime. To be sure, demilitarizing epidemic diseases in West Africa will divert resources to building roads that lead to good hospitals and schools of medicine to train public health personnel for the continent.

_____________
* Narcisse Jean Alcide Nana holds a BA in Philosophy, MA in Political Theology from Boston College and is currently specializing in International Security at the University of Leicester, UK.

Reprinted with permission from Pambazuka News.

Paid Sick Days for Six Million Californians to Become Law

California Governor Jerry Brown

By: Jonas Persson

When Governor Jerry Brown signs Assembly Bill 1522, California will join a growing number of states where temporary or part-time employees no longer have to face the excruciating dilemma: go to work sick, or lose pay or your job.

The bill, which allows workers to accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked, up to a total of three days a year, passed over the weekend with a 52–25 vote in the State Assembly. With more than 6 million workers -- or 44 percent of the California workforce -- covered, it is by far the biggest expansion of paid sick days in the country.

"A Key Component of Decent Work"

The lack of paid sick days can have repercussions that extend far beyond the emotional and financial strain caused by employers telling their workers to "shape up or ship out."

Workers who do not have access to paid sick days are one-and-a-half times more likely to go to work sick with a contagious illness, putting their co-workers and customers at risk, and costing an estimated $160 billion each year in lost productivity. Delaying treatment for illness can cause conditions to worsen, leading to more emergency room visits and increased costs for public health insurance programs. A 2012 study by the Center for Disease Control found that employees without paid sick leave are much less likely to receive preventive health care, such as mammography and other forms of cancer screening.

The World Health Organization argued in a 2010 report that paid sick days are "a key component of decent work." Not surprisingly, organizations to the right begged to differ. The California Restaurant Association opposed the legislation, and the California Chamber of Commerce trotted out the tired refrain that employees not working sick is a "job-killer."

And in an op-ed for The Sacramento Bee, two writers affiliated with the Freedom Foundation and the Employment Policies Institute argued that the bill would have "negative consequences for affected employers."

The Employment Policies Institute is a $3 million-a-year front group created by infamous PR executive Richard Berman and which operates out of the same building as Berman & Co, a PR firm that receives funding from the restaurant industry. The Freedom Foundation (which boycotted labor day) is a member of the State Policy Network and the brainchild of American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) "scholar" Bob Williams. Despite being funded by powerful corporate and ideological interests, these anti-worker organizations lost the battle in California.

Since Connecticut passed the first statewide law mandating paid sick days in 2011, labor rights campaigns have, in fact, gained both political traction and popular support. Eleven cities across the country have enacted paid sick day laws in recent years, including one in New York City last year guaranteeing paid days for a million workers. Four cities have enacted laws in 2014: Eugene, OR; Newark, NJ; Passaic, NJ; and San Diego, CA.

As the paid sick day movement has gained momentum, its opponents -- particularly those in the corporate restaurant industry -- have tried to thwart it. Since 2011, eleven states have thwarted local control through "preemption" laws prohibiting city, county, or local governments from enacting paid sick day laws with the assistance of ALEC legislators.

Today, an overwhelming majority of Americans across the political spectrum are in favor of paid sick days. Of those responding to a recent YouGov poll, 74 percent supported the measure. While Democrats were most positive, 69 percent of voters who identified as Republicans voiced their approval.

The question will be on the Massachusetts ballot in November, and next year it will be up for a vote in at least six more states, including Maryland and Vermont.

"A Significant Victory"

The original version of the California bill did not exempt any workers from the provisions, but an amendment was added at the last minute excluding the state's 400,000 "in-home" health workers. As a result of this watering-down, some unions withdrew their support. In a statement, Laphonza Butler, president of SEIU ULTCW -- the United Long Term Care Workers' Union -- expressed her shock that "California lawmakers would even consider attempting to send the caregiving workforce to the back of the bus again on sick days."

Still, the passing of the law represents an important step, according to Family Values @ Work, a network fighting for "family-friendly workplace policies such as paid sick days and family leave insurance." Director Ellen Bravo stresses that while the coalition will stay organized to end the exclusion of home care workers and expand the number of days, "it's a significant victory that would not have been possible without a long history of organizing by a broad coalition of local workers, unions, small business owners and partner organizations."

Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), the state representative and former labor activist who introduced the bill, hailed its passage as an unprecedented victory for workers rights.

Reprinted with permission from PRWatch.