Does the CDC Tell the Truth About Vaccines and Immunizations?
By Staff News & Analysis - April 20, 2012

Measles cases reached 15-year high in 2011: CDC … Measles cases in the United States hit a 15-year high in 2011, with 90 percent of the cases traced to other countries with lower immunization rates, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on Thursday. There were 222 cases of measles in the United States last year, more than triple the usual number, the CDC said. There had been only about 60 cases per year between 2001 and 2010. No one has died of the disease in the United States since 2008. But approximately 20 million people contract the measles virus each year worldwide, and about 164,000 die from it, said Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the health agency's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. The agency said in 2000 that home-grown measles had been eliminated, but cases continued to arrive in the United States from abroad. – Reuters

Dominant Social Theme: People have to understand that vaccines are good for them, all of them.

Free-Market Analysis: The vaccine wars are heating up and now the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stepped in to let us know that measles is on the rise. Should we believe it?

Once we would have without question. Even the name of the CDC inspires confidence and authority. But what we've found out about vaccines, thanks to the Internet, has made us question some of the fundamentals of modern Western medicine.

Anybody reading that measles cases were increasing, according to the CDC, would surely accept such an innocent and factual statement. But having become increasingly aware that all is not always as it seems, we went looking to see if the CDC perhaps fudged statistics.

The answer? A qualified "yes." This is what we found from some "ThinkTwice!" correspondence posted on the Internet. ThinkTwice bills itself as a "global vaccine network." The documents are public record, though we would doubt much was ever done to rectify the situations they describe. Here's an intro to the ThinkTwice documents:

Scientific Fraud and Vaccines … The Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute occasionally receives email from drug company insiders – people who truly know what goes on behind closed doors. We also receive undisclosed information from CDC, FDA and other government insiders, ethical people who wish to speak out against the scientific fraud that they observed or were forced to participate in. Usually they request anonymity and that their information not be made public for fear of legal retaliation – or worse.

Here's an excerpt from one letter posted on the website:

Thinktwice! recently received from a research analyst who spent 7 years working for the CDC to assess the benefit/risk ratio of the chickenpox vaccine. This analyst quit in disgust when he found that his data proving serious problems with this vaccine was suppressed.

Q. Dear Editor, I have read with great interest various items on your website. First of all, please let me introduce myself. I have served as Research Analyst on the Antelope Valley Varicella Active Surveillance Project, one of three sites supported by a grant from the CDC, for the past 7 years. I recently resigned from this position as I encountered deleterious effects of the varicella vaccine (including increasing incidence of Herpes Zoster among children with prior wild-type varicella experience) which appeared to be suppressed by my supervisors and the CDC; while all positive results were published.

I have three manuscripts that have much technical merit, however, like other manuscripts that support increased incidence of HZ among adults by Brisson et al and Thomas et al, the major U.S. journals (such as Journal of the American Medical Association and New England Journal of Medicine) will not consider them for publication. Do you have any recommendations on other journals, even European ones that might be more objective?

Is there an appropriate manner in which to have the manuscripts objectively peer-reviewed and published in a peer-reviewed journal? Dr. Philip R. Krause, head research scientist of the Biologics Lab of the FDA, had done a preliminary review of one of my manuscripts and suggested there was indeed some merit to the hypotheses presented.

I have also, unbelievably found great manipulation of data by CDC suggesting "no increases in herpes zoster at this time." Yet, they utilized a study that had insufficient power and too small of a sample size to detect increases in incidence less than 400%.

We can see from the above correspondence that significant questions are being raised about CDC data. What then are we to make about the bland statement now issued by the CDC via Reuters that "There have been more than 25 measles cases reported so far in 2012, most of them imported…"?

And their elaboration: "The virus can easily enter the country through foreign visitors or Americans traveling abroad who bring the disease back with them … Measles cases were found in 31 states in 2011. Last year's count marked the highest number of cases since 1996, when there were 508 cases in the United States."

Are these data accurate? We assume so (don't we?). But we also believe a case is likely being made by public health authorities that people MUST take vaccines in order to create "herd immunity."

As we've been reporting for years, there is increased controversy about vaccines, including about their effectiveness and the side effects. Just yesterday, in an article entitled "Is the Vaccine Industry Beginning to Fail?" we wrote the following:

Here at the Daily Bell, we track these dominant social themes that are used to frighten people into giving up power and control to the globalist institutions that are meant to run the world. We're not sure why the dynastic central banking families apparently want one-world government, but they sure seem to.

And while they're at it, they want control over our minds, habitats and above all, our bodies. Vaccines were a big part of that control. But this meme is falling to pieces. Turns out, as we've documented, that vaccines were never double-blind tested, for "ethical" reasons. And that the statistics that brought vaccines into force were fudged.

And then there is the extraordinary persecution of Andrew Wakefield, who had the temerity to explain that SOME children might have bad reactions to vaccines. It is malodorous and immoral for the medical profession to continue to pump children full of mercury and dead viruses (or live ones) when it knows collectively by now that a certain percentage of children will get sick from these vaccines.

On top of it, for anyone who examines the record without bias, the questions about vaccines and their efficacy are mounting daily. Just because the mainstream media – controlled by the same elites that own the large pharmaceutical companies – claim something is so doesn't make it true. Prove it, we say.

Presumably, those who have been immunized won't get the diseases they've been immunized against. That means those who have NOT been immunized may catch the disease, assuming that vaccines actually repel diseases, which is increasingly being shown to be untrue.

This seems to be the issue that Western medicine must grapple with: Is it fair to demand that all youngsters be immunized when some will likely suffer from side-effects that will result in injury or death?

The answer would be that, supposedly, vaccinations eradicate disease for all – even those who have not received vaccines but who benefit from the larger herd immunity. Granted this is a percentage of all children in a given region. But meanwhile, other children are likely suffering from the side effects of vaccines.

As more and more vaccines are given, the likelihood of increased injury from vaccinations rises. At what point does the trade-off become intolerable?

And here is a larger question: Who empowered public health officials to decide that the injury to some children was a tolerable side-effect to ensure a larger "herd immunity"?

And here is a larger question still: Are there any GOOD figures for the efficacy of vaccines? We know from past research that, for instance, the original claims regarding the polio vaccine were fudged. We know as well that vaccines were apparently never subject to double-blind testing, for "ethical" reasons.

And now, as a result of some preliminary digging on the Internet, we discover that the CDC, which keeps statistics on such things, is itself seemingly unreliable.

We begin to wonder what exactly is true when it comes to vaccines and what is being, well … covered up.

What we call the Internet Reformation is creating the questions – not just for us but for others as well. As time goes on, even the fundamental tenets of social verities are questioned with greater or lesser energy.

The Roman Catholic Church suffered the same fate during the Reformation after the Gutenberg Press allowed people to read the Bible. Of course, the world didn't end then – when people discovered that institutions they'd trusted in were unreliable.

The world won't end now. But chances are the information WILL come out at some point. We're too far down the track. That goes for vaccines and for other verities as well.

After Thoughts

As the elite's dominant social themes begin to collapse, the truth of some variant of it shall emerge. Metaphorically speaking, these elite memes are, perhaps, a kind of "dead men walking."