Swine Flu shots a sham, CDC DIr. Arrested

[Guest guest]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/28/cdc-director-arrested-for-child-molestation--bestiality.aspx

CDC Director Arrested for Child Molestation and Bestiality

Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 28 2011

Dr. Quinlan Lindsey, a top official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been arrested and charged with two counts of child molestation and one count of bestiality.

Dr. Lindsey, who joined the CDC in 1999, is currently the deputy director for the Laboratory Science Policy and Practice Program Office. She's second in command of the program office.

Prior to that role, she was the senior health scientist in the Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, an office that oversees the allocation process for $1.5 billion in terrorism preparedness.

According to CNN:

"Authorities also charged Lindsey's live-in boyfriend, ph Westerman, 42, with two counts of child molestation.

The two are accused of 'immoral and indecent' sexual acts involving a 6-year-old ...

The bestiality charge says Lindsey 'did unlawfully perform or submit to any sexual act with an animal.'"

Between January and August last year, Dr. Lindsey and her boyfriend allegedly involved the child during sex, and DeKalb County police claim they discovered photographs of Lindsey performing sex acts on a couple of her pets.

Some of you may wonder why I've chosen to discuss this story. Some may think it's in poor taste and doesn't belong in a newsletter about health. However, I believe it's relevant to be aware that someone in charge of your child's health is allegedly engaged in child abuse. Her actions raise serious questions in my mind about her level of concern for the health and well-being of children in general.

Dr. Lindsey Played Primary Role in Bogus Swine Flu Propaganda Campaign

As you may recall, the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic turned out to be a complete sham, with a fast-tracked and particularly dangerous vaccine being pushed as the sole remedy. Children and pregnant women were the primary targets of this dangerous vaccine. The H1N1 flu was a perfect example of how the CDC can brazenly distort reality, and often ignore and deny the dangerous and life-threatening side effects of their solution. As a result of this bogus propaganda campaign, thousands of people were harmed (and many died) worldwide.

In August, it was revealed that the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine increased the risk for narcolepsy—a very rare and devastating sleeping disorder—in Swedish children and adolescents by 660 percent.

Finland also noticed a dramatic increase in narcolepsy following vaccination with Pandemrix. There, an interim report issued in January of this year found that the H1N1 vaccine increased the risk of narcolepsy by 900 percent in children and adolescents below the age of 19. In the US, the H1N1 flu vaccine was statistically linked with abnormally high rates of miscarriage and stillbirths. As reported by Rubin on the NVIC's blog, the US H1N1 flu vaccine was SIXTY times more likely to be reported to VAERS to be associated with miscarriage than previous seasonal flu vaccines.

The only "winners" in this game were the pharmaceutical companies that received millions of dollars for this never-proven-effective and highly reactive vaccine, while being sheltered by our government from liability for any harm it caused.

Dr. Lindsey played an important role in that campaign, which ended in tragedy for countless many—not from a killer flu (statistically, the 2009 H1N1 flu was MILDER than usual) but from the dangerous and expensive "remedy" to this oversold non-threat.

All of that said, I do want to stress that Dr. Lindsey has not yet been found guilty, and there are still many unanswered questions relating to this case. But this is not the only shocking story raising questions about the ethics of those involved in creating the CDC's health recommendations.

The CDC's Stance on Water Fluoridation—Another Misleading Recommendation

Take water fluoridation for example.

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the 1970's, the dental health professionals in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have had sole control over the agency's stance supporting water fluoridation.

The CDC is part of a larger administrative structure that provides intra-agency support and resource sharing for health issues that require the input from more than one area of expertise. Other offices that share information and expertise with the CDC include the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Minority Health and Health Equity, and the Agency for Toxic Substances. The general assumption has been that the agency used a broad range of expert input to evaluate fluoride before reaching the decision to support water fluoridation.

After all, since fluoride is swallowed, it stands to reason it may have an impact on your whole body, not just your teeth.

Yet the documents show that no CDC toxicologists, minority health professionals, experts in diabetes, or others outside the Oral Health Division had any input into the agency's position.

This flies in the face of what the agency claims, and what water-, health- and political leaders have believed about the way the CDC operates. Without these additional experts from other fields, can we reasonably believe that the agency has properly assessed the research on whole-body harm from fluoridation? The documents have drawn attention once again to the CDC's and EPA's fluoride safety statements, which appear completely at odds with current scientific knowledge, and the fact that no outside experts from related fields were ever included may very well explain this discrepancy.

CDC Doctor who "Debunked" Vaccine-Autism Link Indicted on Fraud

Another shocking case involving the CDC is that of Dr. Poul Thorsen, who, after being found to have falsified documents, was indicted on fraud, money laundering and tax evasion after stealing somewhere between $1-2 million in research grant money from the CDC.

Here you might wonder why I'm faulting the CDC, as the organization was the victim of fraud. The reason I fault them is because they hired Dr. Thorsen to debunk the link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism—which he did to their satisfaction. However, CDC officials may have played a significant role in "guiding" this research to their desired end, and now that Thorsen has been exposed as a fraud, the agency still upholds his research as being of high caliber.

As explained in a 2010 article by F. Kennedy Jr.:

"Thorsen was a leading member of a Danish research group that wrote several key studies supporting CDC's claims that the MMR vaccine and mercury-laden vaccines were safe for children. Thorsen's 2003 Danish study reported a 20-fold increase in autism in Denmark after that country banned mercury based preservatives in its vaccines. His study concluded that mercury could therefore not be the culprit behind the autism epidemic.

His study has long been criticized as fraudulent since it failed to disclose that the increase was an artifact of new mandates requiring, for the first time, that autism cases be reported on the national registry. This new law and the opening of a clinic dedicated to autism treatment in Copenhagen accounted for the sudden rise in reported cases rather than, as Thorsen seemed to suggest, the removal of mercury from vaccines.

Despite this obvious chicanery, CDC has long touted the study as the principal proof that mercury-laced vaccines are safe for infants and young children. Mainstream media, particularly the New York Times, has relied on this study as the basis for its public assurances that it is safe to inject young children with mercury -- a potent neurotoxin -- at concentrations hundreds of times over the U.S. safety limits."

Were CDC Officials in on the Fraud?

Emails released in response to FOIA filings by parents also show that Kreesten Madsen, one of Dr. Thorsen's research partners, had acquiesced to the wishes of CDC officials who wanted to cherry pick facts in order to prove vaccine safety. Furthermore, according to an April 28 report by Natural News:

"From February 2004 through June 2008, says the DOJ indictment, Thorsen allegedly submitted over a dozen fraudulent invoices requesting reimbursement for expenses that were fabricated. Interestingly, these allegedly fraudulent invoices were signed by a laboratory section chief at the CDC, indicating that someone inside the CDC was either duped by Thorsen or potentially involved in the alleged fraud.

… This is the great untold story of an alleged criminal ring operating inside the CDC, with the purpose of falsifying research that would "disprove" any links between vaccines and toxic side effects."

Why Does the CDC Not Invalidate Dr. Thorsen's Research?

Dr. Thorsen's studies are frequently quoted in rebuttals to the claim that vaccines may play a role in the disorder. The studies in question were riddled with flaws, yet despite the fact that Thorsen's studies may actually be a complete sham, the CDC has not officially declared them invalid. In fact, they're still listed on the CDC website as part of the scientific backing of their stance on autism and vaccine safety.

Nor has the media jumped on this story and exposed how vaccine-safety claims have been based on junk science by a scam artist. They've also failed to question why none of the journals have denounced Dr. Thorsen's studies, which support the claim that vaccines are safe, while Dr. Wakefield's research was denounced after the mere insinuation of wrong-doing.

Furthermore, according to research by Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill writing for AgeOfAutism.com, Dr. Thorsen has also been working with the American Psychiatric Association (APA) on an updated definition of "autism" for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), which is slated for release in May 2013. I believe it would be prudent to take a deeper look at his input, to make sure his connections to the CDC and his role in protecting vaccine safety has not tainted the new definition of autism.

The sad fact is that conflicts of interest color most of the ties between our government and the pharmaceutical industry, and conventional media repeatedly fails to report the truth on these matters.

So, who can you trust?

I would recommend trusting yourself. Do your own research, and make your own decisions accordingly. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is an excellent resource on all things relating to the controversial topic of vaccines. They have been compiling objective evidence showing both sides of the issue and have been one of the strongest voices for vaccine safety and true informed consent.

Please go to the above link to read the full article.

To: Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 8:38 PMSubject: Shock vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults (not 60% as you've been told)

from a list member..........I saw this study on our local news, and at the end, they said although it was 59 % effective, that it was still effective and to still get your flu shot. Doesn't make any sense! On another note, here was the interpretation of the study from natural news.http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.html

Shock vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults (not 60% as you've been told) Thursday, October 27, 2011by Mike , the Health RangerEditor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

(NaturalNews) A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as proof that "flu vaccines are 60% effective!"This absurd claim was repeated across the mainstream media over the past few days, with all sorts of sloppy reporting that didn't even bother to read the study itself (as usual).NaturalNews continues to earn a reputation for actually READING these "scientific" studies and then reporting what they really reveal, not what some vaccine-pushing CDC bureaucrat wants them to say. So we purchased the PDF file from The Lancet and read this study to get the real story.

The "60% effectiveness" claim is a total lie - here's whyWhat we found is that the "60% effectiveness" claim is utterly absurd and highly misleading. For starters, most people think that "60% effectiveness" means that for every 100 people injected with the flu shot, 60 of them won't get the flu!Thus, the "60% effectiveness" claim implies that getting a flu shot has about a 6 in 10 chance of preventing you from getting the flu.This is utterly false.In reality -- and this is spelled out right in Figure 2 of the study itself, which is entitled, "Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis" -- only about 2.7 in 100 adults get the flu in the first place!See the abstract at:http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...

Flu vaccine stops influenza in only 1.5 out of 100 adults who get the shotsLet's start with the actual numbers from the study.The "control group" of adults consisted of 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza. Over 97% of them did not. Only 357 of them caught influenza, which means only 2.7% of these adults caught the flu in the first place.The "treatment group" consisted of adults who were vaccinated with a trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. Out of this group, according to the study, only 1.2% did not catch the flu.The difference between these two groups is 1.5 people out of 100.So even if you believe this study, and even if you believe all the pro-vaccine hype behind it, the truly "scientific" conclusion from this is rather astonishing:Flu vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of every 100 adults

injected with the vaccine!Note that this is very, very close to my own analysis of the effectiveness vaccines as I wrote back in September of 2010 in an article entitled, Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines ( http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v... )In that article, I proclaimed that flu vaccines "don't work on 99 out of 100 people." Apparently, if you believe the new study, I was off by 0.5 people out of 100 (at least in adults, see below for more discussion of effectiveness on children).

So where does the media get "60% effective?"This is called "massaging the numbers," and it's an old statistical trick that the vaccine industry (and the pharmaceutical industry) uses over and over again to trick people into thinking their useless drugs actually work.First, you take the 2.73% in the control group who got the flu, and you divide that into the 1.18% in the treatment group who got the flu. This gives you 0.43.You can then say that 0.43 is "43% of 2.73," and claim that the vaccine therefore results in a "57% decrease" in influenza infections. This then becomes a "57% effectiveness rate" claim.The overall "60% effectiveness" being claimed from this study comes from adding additional data about vaccine efficacy for children, which returned higher numbers than adults (see below). There were other problems with the data for children, however, including one study that showed an increase in

influenza rates in the second year after the flu shot.So when the media (or your doctor, or pharmacist, or CDC official) says these vaccines are "60% effective," what they really mean is that you would have to inject 100 adults to avoid the flu in just 1.5 of them.Or, put another way, flu vaccines do nothing in 98.5% of adults.But you've probably already noticed that the mainstream media won't dare print this statistical revelation. They would much rather mislead everybody into the utterly false and ridiculous belief that flu vaccines are "60% effective," whatever that means.

How to lie with statisticsThis little statistical lying technique is very popular in the cancer industry, too, where these "relative numbers" are used to lie about all sorts of drugs.You may have heard, for example, that a breast cancer drug is "50% effective at preventing breast cancer!"But what does that really mean? It could mean that 2 women out of 100 got breast cancer in the control group, and only 1 woman out of 100 got it in the treatment group. Thus, the drug is only shown to work on 1 out of 100 women.But since 1 is 50% of 2, they will spin the store and claim a "50% breast cancer prevention rate!" And most consumers will buy into this because they don't understand how the medical industry lies with these statistics. So they will think to themselves, "Wow, if I take this medication, there is a 50% chance this will prevent breast cancer for me!"And yet that's utterly false. In

fact, there is only a 1% chance it will prevent breast cancer for you, according to the study.

Minimizing side effects with yet more statistical liesAt the same time the vaccine and drug industries are lying with relative statistics to make you think their drugs really work (even when they don't), they will also use absolute statistics to try to minimize any perception of side effects.In the fictional example given above for a breast cancer drug, let's suppose the drug prevented breast cancer in 1 out of 100 women, but while doing that, it caused kidney failure in 4 out of 100 women who take it. The manufacturer of the drug would spin all this and say something like the following:"This amazing new drug has a 50% efficacy rate! But it only causes side effects in 4%!"You see how this game is played? So they make the benefits look huge and the side effects look small. But in reality -- scientifically speaking -- you are 400% more likely to be injured by the drug than helped by it!

(Or 4 times more likely, which is the same thing stated differently.)

How many people are harmed by influenza vaccines?Much the same is true with vaccines. In this influenza vaccine study just published in The Lancet, it shows that you have to inject 100 adults to avoid influenza in just 1.5 adults. But what they don't tell you is the side effect rate in all 100 adults!It's very likely that upon injecting 100 adults with vaccines containing chemical adjuvants (inflammatory chemicals used to make flu vaccines "work" better), you might get 7.5 cases of long-term neurological side effects such as dementia or Alzheimer's. This is an estimate, by the way, used here to illustrate the statistics involved.So for every 100 adults you injected with this flu vaccine, you prevent the flu in 1.5 of them, but you cause a neurological disorder in 7.5 of them! This means you are 500% more likely to be harmed by the flu vaccine than helped by it. (A theoretical

example only. This study did not contain statistics on the harm of vaccines.)Much the same is true with mammograms, by the way, which harm 10 women for every 1 woman they actually help ( http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html).Chemotherapy is also a similar story. Sure, chemotherapy may "shrink tumors" in 80% of those who receive it, but shrinking tumors does not prevent death. And in reality, chemotherapy eventually kills most of those who receive it. Many of those people who describe themselves as "cancer survivors" are, for the most part, actually "chemo survivors."

Good news for children?If there's any "good news" in this study, it's that the data show vaccines to be considerably more effective on children than on adults. According to the actual data (from Figure 2 of the study itself), influenza vaccines are effective at preventing influenza infections in 12 out of 100 children.So the best result of the study (which still has many problems, see below) is that the vaccines work on 12% of children who are injected. But again, this data is almost certainly largely falsified in favor of the vaccine industry, as explained below. It also completely ignores the vaccine / autism link, which is provably quite real and yet has been politically and financially swept under the rug by the criminal vaccine industry (which relies on scientific lies to stay in business).

Guess who funded this study?This study was funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the very same non-profit that gives grant money to Wikipedia (which has an obvious pro-vaccine slant), and is staffed by pharma loyalists.For example, the Vice President for Human Resources and Program Management at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation is none other than Gail Pesyna, a former DuPont executive (DuPont is second in the world in GMO biotech activities, just behind Monsanto) with special expertise in pharmaceuticals and medical diagnostics. ( http://www.sloan.org/bio/item/10)The Alred P. Sloan Foundation also gave a $650,000 grant to fund the creation of a film called "Shots in the Dark: The Wayward Search for an AIDS Vaccine," ( http://www.sloan.org/assets/files/a...) which features a pro-vaccine slant that focuses on the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, an AIDS-centric front group for Big Pharma which was founded by none other than the Rockefeller Foundation ( http://www.vppartners.org/sites/def... ).

Seven significant credibility problems with this Lancet studyBeyond all the points already mentioned above, this study suffers from at least seven significant problems that any honest journalist should have pointed out:Problem #1) The "control" group was often given a vaccine, tooIn many of the studies used in this meta analysis, the "control" groups were given so-called "insert" vaccines which may have contained chemical adjuvants and other additives but not attenuated viruses. Why does this matter? Because the adjuvants can cause immune system disorders, thereby making the control group more susceptible to influenza infections and distorting the data in favor of vaccines. The "control" group, in other words, wasn't really a proper control group in many studies.Problem #2) Flu vaccines are NEVER tested against non-vaccinated healthy childrenIt's the most horrifying thought of

all for the vaccine industry: Testing healthy, non-vaccinated children against vaccinated children. It's no surprise, therefore, that flu shots were simply not tested against "never vaccinated" children who have avoided flu shots for their entire lives. That would be a real test, huh? But of course you will never see that test conducted because it would make flu shots look laughably useless by comparison.Problem #3) Influenza vaccines were not tested against vitamin DVitamin D prevents influenza at a rate that is 8 times more effective than flu shots ( http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_v...). Read the article to see the actual "absolute" numbers in this study.Problem #4) There is no observation of long-term health effects of vaccinesVaccines are considered "effective" if they

merely prevent the flu. But what if they also cause a 50% increase in Alzheimer's two decades later? Is that still a "success?" If you're a drug manufacturer it is, because you can make money on the vaccine and then later on the Alzheimer's pills, too. That's probably why neither the CDC nor the FDA ever conducts long-term testing of influenza vaccines. They simply have no willingness whatsoever to observe and record the actual long-term results of vaccines.Problem #5) 99.5% of eligible studies were excluded from this meta-analysisThere were 5,707 potentially eligible studied identified for this meta-analysis study. A whopping 99.5% of those studies were excluded for one reason or another, leaving only 28 studies that were "selected" for inclusion. Give that this study was published in a pro-vaccine medical journal, and authored by researchers who likely have financial ties to the vaccine industry, it is very

difficult to imagine that this selection of 28 studies was not in some way slanted to favor vaccine efficacy.Remember: Scientific fraud isn't the exception in modern medicine; it is

What the public believesThanks to the outright lies of the CDC, the flu shot propaganda of retail pharmacies, and the quack science published in conventional medical journals, most people today falsely believe that flu shots are "70 to 90 percent effective." This is the official propaganda on the effectiveness of vaccines.It is so pervasive that when this new study came out reporting vaccines to be "only" 60% effective, some mainstream media outlets actually published articles with headlines like, "Vaccines don't work as well as you might have thought." These headlines were followed up with explanations like "Even though we all thought vaccines were up to 90% effective, it turns out they are only 60% effective!"I hate to break it to 'em all, but the truth is that flu shots, even in the best case the industry can come up with, really only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults.Or, put another way, when

you see 100 adults lined up at a pharmacy waiting to receive their coveted flu shots, nearly 99 out of those 100 are not only wasting their time (and money), but may actually be subjecting themselves to long-term neurological damage as a result of being injected with flu shot chemical adjuvants.

Outright fraudulent marketingGiven their 1.5% effectiveness among adults, the marketing of flu shots is one of the most outrageous examples of fraudulent marketing ever witnessed in modern society. Can you imagine a car company selling a car that only worked 1.5% of the time? Or a computer company selling a computer that only worked 1.5% of the time? They would be indicted for fraud by the FTC!So why does the vaccine industry get away with marketing its flu shots that even the most desperately pro-vaccine statistical analysis reveals only works on 1.5 out of 100 adults?It's truly astonishing. This puts flu shots in roughly the same efficacy category as rubbing a rabbit's foot or wishing really hard. That this is what passes as "science" today is so snortingly laughable that it makes your ribs hurt.That so many adults today buy into this total marketing fraud is a powerful commentary on the

gullibility of the population and the power of TV-driven news propaganda. Apparently, actually getting people to buy something totally useless that might actually harm them (or kill them) isn't difficult these days. Just shroud it all under "science" jargon and offer prizes to the pharmacy workers who strong-arm the most customers to get injected. And it works!

The real story on flu shots that you probably don't want to knowWant to know the real story on what flu shots are for? They aren't for halting the flu. We've already established that. They hardly work at all, even if you believe the "science" on that.So what are flu shots really for?You won't like this answer, but I'll tell you what I now believe to be true: The purpose of flu shots is to "soft kill" the global population. Vaccines are population control technologies, as openly admitted by Bill Gates ( http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_v...) and they are so cleverly packaged under the fabricated "public health" message that even those who administer vaccines have no idea they are actually engaged in the reduction of human population through vaccine-induced infertility and genetic

mutations.Vaccines ultimately have but one purpose: To permanently alter the human gene pool and "weed out" those humans who are stupid enough to fall for vaccine propaganda.And for that nefarious purpose, they probably are 60% effective after all.Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.html#ixzz1c27UR8Ch

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USAVaccines - http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy http://homeopathycures.wordpress.comVaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes & Homeopathy Online/email courses - next classes start November 4