THE PRINCIPLE- The Movie Big Science Does NOT want YOU to see. SEE IT NOW.



The Principle
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Flu vaccine proven to be in fact an anti fertility vaccine

  1. #1
    Great Value Carrots
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,045
    Thanks
    1,602
    Thanked 1,106 Times in 640 Posts

    Flu vaccine proven to be in fact an anti fertility vaccine

    From Jim Stone:

    Update to the flu shot report below
    Only a few responses to this vaccine report have come in over the last day, (which means my real readers are not reaching me because with something like this there are usually over 100) and the now five responses that have made it call me a fruit cake. This is a solid indicator that this is BANG ON, and it is.




    IT CANNOT GET ANY SIMPLER THAN THIS:



    . The natural miscarriage rate is between 13 and 14 percent every year. This is confirmed outside of this study. No matter how anyone trolls this (and it is getting heavily trolled everywhere, even when others post about the same topic the same way I did without reposting what is here, I mean separate independent reports,) the 7.7 number represents a 77 percent miscarriage rate after two subsequent flu shots.

    After the first flu shot, the miscarriage rate jumps to 37 percent, after the second it jumps to 77 percent which proves the flu shot is in fact an anti fertility vaccine, and anti fertility vaccines need more than one dose to become highly effective. They are always administered as an initial dose and two or more subsequent boosters. This correlation of increase between subsequent flu shots fits the profile exactly for historic incidents of administration of clandestine anti fertility shots in nations other than America.

    There is no difference between the flu shot given in America which is now a proven veiled anti fertility vaccine, and the tetanus shots which were also revealed as anti fertility vaccines administered to women in the Phillipines, Africa, and Mexico. It is the same old story in America now, and the new vector the elite are using is the flu shot. Folks, it can't get any simpler than this, READ IT AND BE AWARE:

    Vaccine eugenics trolls are ALL OVER THIS. They have to protect their weapon from the light of public scrutiny at all cost, clearly they expected this report to stay buried deep on page 49,355 and never expected it to see the light of day. On top of it, the report was done by pro vaxxers who for whatever reason produced the real numbers and then ignored them, instead burying them under unbelievably wide error margins. It stayed buried for five years until someone shed light on it.



    MAJOR REPORT: FLU VACCINE PROVEN TO BE IN FACT AN ANTI FERTILITY VACCINE BY MAJOR VERIFIED SCIENTIFIC GROUP
    Two subsequent years of receiving the flu vaccine boosts miscarriage rates from a baseline of 14 percent to 77%
    Pay no attention to how they whitewash this, because they actually gave the real numbers, which speak for themselves.


    More than just the abstract was hidden behind a paywall, but the abstract had all the key info!

    The abstract proves that every time you get the flu shot after the first shot, it is only a booster shot to make the anti fertility component work even better. This study only shows what happens after two subsequent years of getting the shot.

    FINAL OUTCOME: Normal miscarriage rates are 14 percent after pregnancy is confirmed (when you are not calling induced abortions miscarriages.) After ONE flu shot, a woman's chance of miscarriage increases to 37 percent. If the next year she gets another flu shot (which is obviously an anti fertility vaccine booster shot), her chances of miscarriage increase to 77 percent. The study did not go to the third year of getting the flu shot.

    IMPORTANT NOTE: If you use planned parenthood's numbers which are greatly overstated and plug them into the numbers in this abstract, the miscarriage rate would have to be over 200 percent (which we all know is not possible) because Planned Parenthood calls induced abortions miscarriages. Planned Parenthood has successfully polluted the infosphere almost entirely with their B.S., but the study used the actual real miscarriage stats, which I confirmed with a little work. So if you decide to try to verify this, make sure you use clean numbers because planned parenthood has wrecked almost all data sources with fraudulent miscarriage stats.



    HERE IT IS:
    Association of spontaneous abortion with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine containing H1N1pdm09 in 2010-11 and 2011-12


    James G. Donahuea, , , Burney A. Kiekea, , Jennifer P. Kinga, , Frank DeStefanob, , Maria A. Mascolac, , Stephanie A. Irvingd, , T. Craig Cheethame, , Jason M. Glanzf, ,

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.06.069

    The original source is at ScienceDirect, HERE

    Abstract introductions

    Inactivated influenza vaccine is recommended in any stage of pregnancy, but evidence of safety in early pregnancy is limited, including for vaccines containing A/H1N1pdm2009 (pH1N1) antigen. We sought to determine if receipt of vaccine containing pH1N1 was associated with spontaneous abortion (SAB).

    My comment - the bolded text means that this was a study to see if the flu vaccine really was an anti fertility vaccine, hence the phrase "spontaneous abortion methods". This proves they had a reason to be suspicious, because they only did this study to see if the flu vaccine was an anti fertility vaccine, which causes spontaeous abortions.

    Methods

    We conducted a case-control study over two influenza seasons (2010-11, 2011-12) in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. Cases had spontaneous abortion and controls had live births or stillbirths and were matched on site, date of last menstrual period, and age. Of 919 potential cases identified using diagnosis codes, 485 were eligible and confirmed by medical record review. Exposure was defined as vaccination with inactivated influenza vaccine before the SAB date; the primary exposure window was the 1-28 days before the SAB.

    My comment - This paragraph establishes the legitimacy of the test, by stating the test conditions.

    Results

    The overall adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1-3.6) for vaccine receipt in the 28-day exposure window; there was no association in other exposure windows. In season-specific analyses, the aOR in the 1-28 days was 3.7 (95% CI 1.4-9.4) in 2010-11 and 1.4 (95% CI 0.6-3.3) in 2011-12. The association was modified by influenza vaccination in the prior season (post hoc analysis). Among women who received pH1N1-containing vaccine in the previous influenza season, the aOR in the 1-28 days was 7.7 (95% CI 2.2-27.3); the aOR was 1.3 (95% CI 0.7-2.7) among women not vaccinated in the previous season. This effect modification was observed in each season.

    My comment: The above states the ratios of what happened between unvaccinated women and vaccinated women, with the maximum possible error swings also stated. The error swings are reported in a way that is way out of whack to leave near mentally deranged margins of error. In this case the margin allowed was 2.0, when the normal rate of miscarriage was 1.4, which represents a margin of error that allows a result more than double normal miscarriage rates to simply be called "error" to help conceal how bad the damage from the vaccines was. This fails because the damage was too much to bury even with that huge error swing allowed.

    The first numbers outside of quotes - 3.7 followed by 1.4, shows 3.7 as the rate of miscarriage after vaccination in the first year (before their "error margins" were applied, and 1.4 as the baseline miscarriage rate (which is 14 percent) in unvaccinated women for the same year. For the second subsequent year of women getting the flu shot, the rate of miscarriage in vaccinated women was 7.7, and the rate of miscarriage in unvaccinated women was 1.3 (13 percent) due to small yearly variations in natural miscarriage rates

    Conclusion

    Spontaneous abortion was associated with influenza vaccination in the preceding 28 days. The association was significant only among women vaccinated in the previous influenza season with pH1N1-containing vaccine. This study does not and cannot establish a causal relationship between repeated influenza vaccination and spontaneous abortion, but further research is warranted

    My comment: It is clear they tried to lie here by leaving margin of errors so high that they buried the first year stats, but in the second year the damage was so much they could not hide it, no matter how they fudged the data. After showing an increase in miscarriage from 14 percent to 77 percent, they then say it is no big deal and can be ignored until further research proves the vaccine is actually a veiled anti fertility vaccine. But the numbers more than obviously speak for themselves.

    This abstract was discovered by GreenMedInfo.com. Their report is very different from mine, because I saw what they were talking about, and then re-did all the confirmation my own way, in much easier to understand terms.

    The problem with their report, (even though they stated the same thing in a different way) is that if anyone tries to confirm what they said, and then gets mired in a pool of Planned parenthood fact rigging bullshit which dominates the infosphere, they won't make any sense of the abstract because inserting planned parenthood's numbers into it would put the miscarriage rate after two years of flu vaccination at over 200 percent, and almost every source out there is using planned parenthood's numbers.

    But Greenmedinfo found this buried abstract to begin with and should be commended for that, and may have made the mistake of not clearing up the issue of planned parenthood fact rigging because they know planned parenthood has obscured the real miscarriage stats badly and as a result never got ensnared by them and then had to filter fact from bullshit. You can read their report HERE Their report is well worth reading also, because it goes into the politics of the issue, and my report was a basic fact check.



    SO MY FINAL NUMBERS: The flu vaccine, after two subsequent years, boosts the miscarriage rate to 77 percent, which is a 592 percent increase over normal. Green Med Info came up with a final answer of a 640 percent increase. The difference is negligible. Two decent sites looked at the same abstract and reached the same conclusion. OBVIOUS ANSWER: There is no way the flu vaccine is anything but an anti fertility vaccine, and I'd bet the kids who do get through pregnancy after their mom takes the jab have a hugely higher autism stat.
    The original abstract is at ScienceDirect, HERE USE IT EVERY TIME A VACCINE TROLL SAYS YOU CANT HANDLE SCIENCE. That is the control mechanism they use - to call you ignorant. This will shut them up!

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bigjon For This Useful Post:

    Ares (19th September 2017),Joshua01 (18th September 2017),midnight rambler (18th September 2017),Neuro (18th September 2017)

  3. #2
    Great Value Carrots
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,213
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 21 Times in 18 Posts

    Re: Flu vaccine proven to be in fact an anti fertility vaccine

    That is a good report on the study (above). Did not realize how bad the results were with the high baseline miscarriage rate.

    https://worldmercuryproject.org/news...-needs-to-end/
    [June 2018] Thimerosal passes more easily from a mother’s bloodstream through the placenta than does methylmercury.31 Fetal cord blood mercury levels are typically about double the mother’s mercury blood levels.32 This is cause for concern for developing babies in light of the CDC’s 2004 recommendation that all pregnant women in any trimester get flu shots. By 2012–2013, uptake of flu shots during pregnancy had steadily increased to approximately 50 percent.33Manufacturers still preserve millions of flu shots with massive bolus doses of thimerosal (about thirty-six million flu shots containing twenty-five micrograms of mercury in the 2017-2018 flu season),34 meaning that children born since 2004 have been increasingly likely to be exposed to thimerosal in utero...

    The medical establishment’s defense of thimerosal’s safety has proven highly successful in tamping down deeper investigation into thimerosal and the vaccine industry. Perhaps because major pharmaceutical companies (the makers of vaccines) are among the biggest advertisers in the U.S., the mainstream press has accepted these government orthodoxies and ignored the ample evidence showing that thimerosal is toxic. In fact, the thimerosal saga illustrates the aggressive, knee-jerk rejection by the press, the medical community and allied financial interests of any scientific information suggesting that established medical practices are harming public health. Nevertheless, continuing to wait for more research is not a reasonable public policy option. Thimerosal is dangerous to human health and should immediately be removed from all vaccines (as well as other pharmaceutical and cosmetic products), both in the U.S. and globally.
    Without thimerosal, vaccines are still toxic and damaging, especially during pregnancy. CDC is expanding corporate immunity:

    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
    42 CFR Part 100 RIN 0906–AB14
    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201...2018-06770.pdf
    National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Adding the Category of Vaccines Recommended for Pregnant Women to the Vaccine Injury Table
    AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS.
    ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
    SUMMARY: As required by a recent amendment to the VICP’s authorizing statute, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) proposes to amend the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) Vaccine Injury Table (Table) to include vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for routine administration in pregnant women. Thus, the Secretary is only seeking public comment on how the addition of this new category is proposed to be formatted on the Table.
    DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before October 1, 2018...

    Background
    The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, title III of Public Law 99–660 (42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq.), established the VICP as a no-fault alternative to the traditional legal system for resolving vaccine injury petitions and to provide compensation for individuals thought to be injured by certain vaccines...

    The 21st Century Cures Act amended section 2114(e) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa–14(e)) to expand the types of vaccines covered under the VICP. See section 3093(c) of the 21st Century Cures Act. The revised statute requires that the Secretary revise the Table to include vaccines recommended by the CDC for routine administration in pregnant women (and subject to an excise tax by Federal law). See section 2114(e) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa–14(e)). Currently, the CDC recommends only two vaccines for routine administration in pregnant women: The tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, and the seasonal influenza vaccine...

    Discussion of Proposed Table Changes
    Congress enacted a mechanism for modification of the statutory Table, through the promulgation of regulatory changes by the Secretary, after consultation with the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV). As required by statute, the Secretary is proposing to revise the Table to include new vaccines recommended by the CDC for routine administration in pregnant women, and seeks comment on the means of effectuating this revision...

    On September 8, 2017, the Program consulted the ACCV regarding options for adding this new category of vaccines to the Table. The ACCV voted unanimously to amend the existing language in Item XVII of the Table to include ‘‘and/or pregnant women’’ after ‘‘children’’ permitting coverage under the VICP of any new vaccine recommended by CDC for routine administration in pregnant women and subject to an excise tax after publication by the Secretary of a notice of coverage. They viewed this option as a simple approach to revising the Table, rather than adding a new general Item XVII to the Table for vaccines recommended for routine administration in pregnant women. Therefore, the Secretary is proposing to amend the existing language in Item XVII of the Table to include ‘‘and/or pregnant women’’ after ‘‘children’’ in accordance with the ACCV’s recommendation which would add to that general category of the Table, any new vaccine recommended by the CDC for routine administration in pregnant women, after imposition of an excise tax and publication of a notice of coverage.

    HHS seeks comments regarding the proposed method of revising the Table, that is, to amend the existing language in Item XVII to include ‘‘and/or pregnant women’’ after ‘‘children’’ which would add to that general category of the Table any new vaccine recommended by the CDC for routine administration in pregnant women after imposition of an excise tax and publication of a notice of coverage. HHS notes that an important consideration in proposing changes to the Table is the clarity of such changes...

    Additional VICP Provisions in the 21st Century Cures Act
    While not seeking comment on these changes in response to this NPRM, the Secretary notes that the 21st Century Cures Act included additional amendments to the Vaccine Act. The 21st Century Cures Act also amended section 2111 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa–11) to permit both a woman who received a covered vaccine while pregnant and any live-born child who was in utero at the time such woman received the vaccine to be considered persons to whom the covered vaccine was administered.

  4. #3
    Great Value Carrots
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,213
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 21 Times in 18 Posts

    Re: Flu vaccine proven to be in fact an anti fertility vaccine

    It was very hard to find information with google searches on the CDC planned changes to expand removal of liability from damage to vaccines given to pregnant women.

    Came across an article on the regulatory changes directly on a news site.

    Searching say "CDC vaccines pregnancy" did not return any results on these new rule changes the CDC is asking for public input with the dozens of pages of search results I went through.

    A search including the CDC's report number did work......sort of: "CDC pregnancy vaccines 0906–AB14"

    First page says over 82,000 results. Second page is partial, "Page 2 of 20 results." None of the 20 results were more than the bureaucratic banality involving the rule change.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •