Shawn Siegel

We’re told that one of the main reasons to vaccinate is to protect babies and toddlers too young to be vaccinated. This would be true only if vaccines actually protect, and they don’t. In fact, and from so many different perspectives, quite the contrary is true.

Most simply, the promise of prevention is empty. Many vaccinated kids develop the diseases after exposure anyway. It’s common to see outbreaks of the infectious illnesses supposedly prevented by vaccination, in which some, or many, sometimes literally all of the kids were vaccinated, the majority of them up to date. Double irony, in such instances the vaccinated go through the normal period of incubation after exposure, during which they’ve yet to develop symptoms, but may be contagious – may be able to spread the infection to their infant siblings.

GSK - GlaxoSmithKline - Record of Infant Death After Vaccines

More subtly, the very act of injection of disease antigens alone misdirects the immune system – interferes with the body’s ability to respond properly to future exposures to the respective illnesses. That’s why the FDA found in a 2013 study that kids vaccinated for whooping cough are prone to developing asymptomatic infection after subsequent exposures, morphing them into Trojan horses; into disease vectors, able because they were vaccinated to surreptitiously spread the whooping cough infection for six weeks, including to their infant siblings at home. The Boston University study told us that perhaps as many as 35% or more of those vaccinated against measles will develop an “illness without rash due to measles” after exposure; they’ll develop fever and respiratory symptoms, and in most cases their measles antibodies will increase appreciably, which again means they’ll likely be able to infect others, since measles is spread through respiration. We also know from the Ronne study that measles without rash is associated with degenerative bone disease, certain tumors and other chronic disorders, later in life. The measles rash, it seems; that unsightly, discomforting, but temporary symptom; has a beneficial purpose. Were it to be implemented by someone we could trust, the above begs a comprehensive study of the long-term effects of subclinical infections after exposure, in the vaccinated.

Most tragically, those infants and toddlers we’re told we need to protect because they’re too young to be vaccinated may already have been severely affected in utero, by vaccines given the mother, and by recommended schedule receive a vaccine literally on the day of birth, and continue with a series of multiple shots over the first year of life. But vaccine ingredients go far beyond just the disease antigens, and the addition of adjuvants, known neurotoxins and other chemicals that trigger, excite and extend the immune response interferes with an essential, natural immunological phenomenon:

Infants are programmed to not respond to introduction of potential pathogens, to allow time for proper overall development. In a natural environment – one we’ve left far behind – the baby’s protected against disease by passive immunity, gained during gestation, and nursing, an ever-changing milkshake of bond, sustenance – and immune cells, as needed. He’s protected against allergy and other autoimmunity because of that non-response, allowing time for the body to catalog self proteins and potential allergens as non-invasive. It’s a rather graceful program of development, severely abused by vaccination.

It’s painfully obvious that the premise that we need to vaccinate to protect those too young to be vaccinated, when the vaccinated can still transmit the diseases to them, and when a powerful, natural program of protection in infants is decimated by vaccines given starting on the day of birth, is total bullshit, used to emotionally coerce vaccination, and I can only conclude that the sonsofbitches controlling the face of the vaccine paradigm are literally out to harm and kill infants and toddlers.

GSK’s 69 Infanrix Deaths Are Not Explicable As Coincidence

Dr Puliyel analyzed the data and found that 97% of deaths (65 deaths) following Infanrix hexa , occur in the first 10 days and only 3% (2 deaths) occur in the next 10 days. Had the deaths been coincidental SIDS deaths unrelated to vaccination, the numbers of deaths in the two 10 day periods should have been the same.

The manufacturers of this vaccine GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) disclosed in a confidential report to the Regulatory Authority that about 72 babies died within 20 days of receiving Infanrix hexa. They reported that the deaths of these children were due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and Sudden Unexpected Death Syndrome (SUDS) unrelated vaccination. However an Italian Court of Justice Nicola Di Leo ordered that it be made public and is now available on the internet (http://autismoevaccini.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/vaccin-dc3a9cc3a8s.pdf)

Analysis of the data shows that at least 69 out of 72 deaths reported were likely to have been caused by the vaccine.

3 thoughts on “GSK – GlaxoSmithKline – Record of Infant Death After Vaccines

  1. All is going according to plan.

  2. The fetus is a ‘toxic sink’ – all poisons, vaccines, mercury fillings, donuts and crap food are first absorbed by the fetus. Can’t find the link to this – heavily censored net (Pharma controlled) – learned this from Dr. Boyd Haley seminar that I attended. about mercury toxicity. https://youtu.be/7Dn7Q_JkDtA

  3. Just common sense will tell you that vaccines are injuring and killing many children and babies. The child gets shots, the child dies or is autistic shortly after. Correlation is evidence for causation. Let’s say you see me walking out of a bank with a gun in my hand and with a sack full of money. You didn’t actually see me rob the bank, but the judge will still send me to prison for 10 years with circumstantial evidence. It’s the very same thing!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Website