Top 6 BOGUS “science-based-medicine” claims founded on faulty research

Science! Scientists, geologists, agriculturalists, climatologists, astronomers, historians, archeologists, biologists, oncologists and geoscientists are so proud to exclaim that their field of study has research and facts to back up their favorite conversations about climate change, GMOs, vaccines, chemotherapy and infectious disease, but what if they all found out today that the majority of their favorite “evidence-based” data was crafted, scripted, manipulated, twisted and distorted to fit an insidious narrative?

Money can buy just about anything except love, and to doubt that money can buy scripted results for faked science research would be unrealistic. Still, the purveyors of fake science declare that anyone who questions their lies, deception and propaganda is “anti-science” and a “conspiracy theorist,” all in a vain effort to discredit real science and honest journalism.

When a powerful biotechnology corporation creates deadly pesticides that kill worms, beetles, bees, plants, farm animals and people, that business needs fake science to back up their empty claims to farmers and consumers about safety, efficacy and “sustainability.”

When rich politicians want to get richer, they invent Ponzi schemes built on fear, propaganda and faked science research to convince Americans (and the rest of the world that’s dumbed down on fluoridated water and flu shots) that it’s all our fault that the earth is about to overheat and flood, and that we’re all going to starve and suffocate to death if we don’t contribute our hard earned money to some bogus cause made up out of “thin air” (pardon the pun).

When the pharmaceutical chemical-medicine-complex of America wants to gain power and riches from the peons who believe chemicals can cure anything, they simply pay big bucks to shill scientists to forge results in laboratories that are then published as “peer reviewed science” and evidence-based facts, even though it’s all paid-for lies and propaganda. Even though every single medicine advertised on television has side effects that are worse than the condition being treated, the crooks at the FDA are protesting to remove those warnings because it’s confusing to Americans, who simply don’t listen and overlook this sidebar information (that’s delivered subliminally anyway).

If you “love” science but don’t trust big corporations and rogue U.S. regulatory agencies, then ask yourself this question: Who ran those “science-based” tests on that medicine, those diseases and disorders, that pesticide and those weather “conditions?” Who ran and paid for those tests? Was it the very companies, corporations and globalists who stand to profit by the millions and billions of dollars from the masses believing in it all?

Lie #1. The Danish Study, based on bogus research, attempted to show that vaccines were not linked to higher autism rates

A criminal psychiatrist named Dr. Poul Thorsen, who was heavily entrenched in pro-vaccine propaganda with the CDC, fled America with over $2 million in embezzled, phony grants he created (using taxpayer dollars) as he scammed well-known U.S. universities and the CDC. Thorsen is the “author” of the Danish Autism Study (complete myth) that attempted to prove vaccines and autism have no correlation. Using fraudulent data to distort the truth about the dangers of mercury in vaccines, Thorsen was the lead investigator of the fraudulent study to cover up the vaccine-autism link that the CDC already discovered (and buried) in 2004.

Lie #2. The $3 billion Human Genome Project ferreted out the genetic roots of most diseases and disorders

When it comes to preventable diseases and disorders in America, medical doctors just love to tell their victims (patients) that everything that’s wrong with them was inherited from their parents’ genes – that way the patient believes there’s no way to cure their problems with a proper diet and that they must take chemical medications for the rest of their shortened lives just to “treat” the symptoms. The Human Genome Project was a complicated boondoggle that is now used for that same purpose. The multi-billion-dollar epic fail project forced the shilling scientific “community” to falsify results and claim they unlocked all the mysteries of the origins of diseases in humans. Why was the project a huge failure? The bottom line was revealed that humans have only about 20,000 protein-coding genes, roughly the same number as the roundworm.

Lie #3. There is no cure for cancer

The cure for cancer lies in filtering chemicals and pathogens out of your body and out of your daily consumption. That means avoiding chemicals and genetically modified organisms in food, water, medicine, home care, yard care and personal care products. Mountains of research prove that an organic, plant-based diet and supplements like vitamin C and D greatly improve your chances of preventing and curing cancer. Fake science fuels the chronic sick care industrial complex of America and the fake “search for the cure.” Look a little harder and smarter and you’ll find the cure already exists!

Lie #4. Zika virus always causes shrunken head syndrome in newborn babies

What happens when you douse a human water supply with a poisonous pesticide, the humans drink it daily for years, and then they have babies? The babies are born deformed. And what happens when globalists (like Bill Gates) want to get richer and depopulate the planet, and they invest in the corrupt vaccine industry? They invent propaganda scare tactics to convince everyone to get more deadly, fertility-destroying vaccines (like Tdap) while spreading more toxic pesticides everywhere. There! You just learned the true story behind the Zika virus scare and fraudulent research. Zika virus is just another “flu,” and it doesn’t cause babies to be born with shrunken heads.

Lie #5. The CDC and their lead scientist Dr. William Thompson, in the early part of this century, studied the safety of mercury in vaccines and found no link to autism.

In the biggest medical discovery cover-up in modern history, the CDC themselves buried the results of a study all but proving that deadly mercury in vaccines causes autism in little boys – mainly African American boys, under age three. An entire team of scientists found out the truth and destroyed the evidence, then altered and skewed the results to fit the corrupt narrative that all vaccines are “safe and effective” – that is, until the lead scientist blew the whistle on the whole thing.

Lie #6. Climate change (global warming) is statistically proven to be caused by human activity and we must give Al Gore our money to fight it

There are some monstrous and insidious ways American racketeers make their fortunes. Those schemes include the pharma-industrial complex, the military industrial complex, and yes, scaring taxpayers into funding Ponzi schemes like global warming. If you are one of those gullible “fish” who bit the bait, it’s time to do a little homework and find out exactly how you got scammed.

Sources for this article include:

NaturalNews.com

TruthWiki.org

NaturalNews.com

TruthWiki.org

NaturalNews.com

HealthImpactNews.com

JimStone.is

NaturalNews.com

Vaccine zealot Paul Offit claims children can be given 10,000 vaccines all at once, with no harm

Fake news, fake science, fake boobs. Doesn’t it feel like we just can’t trust anything anymore? Take, for example, the super-heated vaccine debate that has been raging for a few years now. How are we as parents supposed to know who we should believe? We have wise-looking men in lab coats assuring us that vaccines save millions of lives each year, and that while they carry some risks, these are minimal, and every child should be vaccinated to protect “herd immunity.” On the other side of the spectrum, we have parents of children with neurodevelopment disorders asking us to believe that their children were damaged by vaccines, and the astronomical rise in autism rates in the last few decades that would seem to back them up. How are we supposed to know where to find the truth?

Well, the only way to find the truth is to follow the money. If scientists and doctors have a vested interest in pushing an agenda, how are we supposed to believe anything they say? Only scientists with nothing to gain financially and no conflicts of interest would be worth listening to, right?

Let’s consider this practically by comparing two vaccine studies with opposite findings.

The first study was published in 2002 in the journal Pediatrics, and the lead author was Paul A. Offit, a pediatrician who specializes in infectious diseases, and is an expert on vaccines, immunology and virology. Offit’s study set out to allay parents’ fears that multiple vaccines might overwhelm or weaken their children’s immune systems.

In the study’s summary the authors assured parents, “Current studies do not support the hypothesis that multiple vaccines overwhelm, weaken, or ‘use up’ the immune system. On the contrary, young infants have an enormous capacity to respond to multiple vaccines, as well as to the many other challenges present in the environment.” The authors also asserted that, “[E]ach infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time.” [Emphasis added]

The problem with this argument is that it completely misses the concern over toxic ingredients added to vaccines such as aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, squalene and other chemicals that pose severe neurological risks. Surely Dr. Offit doesn’t believe a child can be injected with 10,000 doses of aluminum and mercury without any negative side effects… does he?

A visit to Amazon.com reveals that Offit has been the author or co-author of no less than eight books, all of which “prove” why vaccines are a great idea. Then there’s the fact that Offit is the co-creator (and patent holder) of the RotaTeq vaccine which supposedly protects against rotavirus. And what about the hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding that the professor received for 2008’s “Every child by two” program? Professor Offit certainly has a vested interest in insisting that vaccines are safe. [RELATED: Discover the truth at Vaccines.news]

Let’s consider the second study. Published recently in the Journal of Translational Science, this study had Professor Anthony R. Mawson as lead author. Dr. Mawson, too, has an impressive list of credentials, and is the author of over 50 published studies. After assessing the health outcomes and neurodevelopmental diseases of over 660 American children, the research team found that while vaccinated children exhibited slightly better protection against chicken pox and whooping cough, but not other viruses, as they “were significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with other infections, allergies, and other neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) like autism and ADHD.”

How much more likely? Vaccinated children were 4.2 times more likely to develop autism, at 4.2 times higher risk of an ADHD diagnosis, had 5.2 times the risk of learning disabilities, were 2.9 times more likely to have eczema, and were a shocking 30 times more likely to have allergic rhinitis!

Now, a careful Amazon.com search will reveal that Professor Mawson has written no pro- or anti-vaccine books. He has no vested interest that I could establish in trying to prove that vaccines are harmful. He’s just a highly-respected scientist who did the study and faithfully recorded the results.

So, who do you believe? The guy who’s built a lucrative and multi-faceted career on doggedly insisting that vaccines are safe? Or the respected scientist who has no hidden agenda and is simply reporting his findings?

Find more coverage of biased vaccine-pushing journalists at VaccineHolocaust.org.

Sources include:

Pediatrics.AAPPublications.org

TruthWiki.org

Amazon.com

OAText.com[PDF]

JSums.edu

WorldMercuryProject.org

Toxic malaria vaccine to be tested in Africa, even after Health Ranger reports on a botanical alternative with an astounding 100% cure rate

Though malaria is a virtually unknown disease to many in the U.S., it is a global menace that affects upwards of 212 million people annually, killing close to half a million in any given year. In the past, the medical approach to the treatment of malaria has been to prescribe a type of drug called Artemisinin Combination Therapies (ACTs). However, on the eve of World Malaria Day – which falls on the 25^th of April each year – the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that it will be starting to test a new anti-malaria vaccine in the fields of Kenya, Ghana and Malawi, beginning in 2018. Though scientists involved with the development of the vaccine have called this “great news,” insisting it will “make a real difference,” is this vaccine really necessary, and will it live up to the hype?

Interestingly, on some fronts, the tide has definitely been turning in the war against malaria. In the 15 years from 2000 to 2015, there was a 62 percent reduction in the number of people dying from malaria, as well as a 41 percent reduction in the total number of diagnoses. This has largely been due to the hard work of NGOs and other groups on the ground who have been educating people about avoiding the disease by using mosquito nets and other control measures, making people more aware of the symptoms of the disease so that they can get treatment sooner, and distributing more medication to nations in need.

One wonders, therefore, why there is so much interest in developing an anti-malaria vaccine now, when the battle is clearly already being won. Very disturbing, too, is the fact that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) has been actively involved in the development of this vaccine, known as Mosquirix or RTS,S. The foundation has donated over $1 billion to family planning initiatives, and one of its stated objectives is to reduce the global population through its Global Health Development Programs. In a TED Talk back in 2010, Bill Gates stated, “The world today has 6.8 billion people … that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” [Emphasis added]

That’s scary stuff. A vaccine is supposed to protect people and prolong their lives, right? So how on earth could vaccines possibly lower population? Logically, if they are as effective as they’re purported to be, they should increase the population by preventing deaths. Kinda makes you wonder what’s in those vaccines, doesn’t it? (RELATED: To find out more about what people like Bill Gates are up to, visit Depopulation.news)

Granted, there has been a marked increase in the number of drug-resistant malaria cases worldwide, but that doesn’t mean a preventative vaccine is the best solution. Even if it doesn’t kill you – and who knows, when the BMGF is involved – vaccines have side effects and are not 100 percent effective. And there is a naturally available treatment that has been successfully used to treat malaria in traditional Amazonian, Chinese and African medicine for centuries, that doesn’t have side effects, can be grown anywhere and can even treat drug-resistant malaria: The Artemisia annua plant, commonly known as sweet wormwood or sweet annie.

The Health Ranger recently reported on a study published in the journal Phytomedicine, which describes how the Artemisia annua plant saved 18 patients in the Congo who were suffering from drug-resistant malaria that was totally unresponsive to any western medical treatment. When the patients failed to respond to ACTs, doctors tried the dried leaves of the Artemisia annua plant in a final bid to save their patients’ lives. After only five days of treatment, all 18 patients were 100 percent recovered, and blood tests revealed absolutely no remaining parasites in their blood.

If a naturally occurring, freely available plant medicine is available to treat drug-resistant strains of malaria, and other preventative measures have already turned the tide in the fight against this disease, any thinking person has to wonder why the BMGF, the WHO and others are suddenly pushing for the release of this new vaccine.

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

Edition.CNN.com

NaturalNews.com

YouTube.com

OccupyCorporatism.com

Vaccine-pushing scientists now arguing that the CDC should promote the inhaled nasal flu vaccine even though it doesn’t work

The nasal spray flu vaccine, FluMist, came under fire not too long ago due to its lack of effectiveness. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) itself said that between the years 2013 and 2016, the spray vaccine offered very little in the way of protection against flu — and during the 2015-2016 year, the vaccine provided no protection to kids aged 2 to 17 at all.

Following this revelation, the CDC chose to recommend in summer 2016 that the spray vaccine should not be used for the upcoming winter. And as the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) has reportedly pointed out, in addition to not providing protection, because FluMist contains a live attenuated virus, it also can cause vaccine strain infections and shedding. In other words, while it may not protect people from the flu, it could very well cause influenza infections in recipients or those who come into contact with them shortly after they’ve received the spray vaccine.

So not only is it ineffective, the vaccine could potentially cause more cases of flu than it prevents. But now, researchers are saying that the federal agency’s recommendation against using the nasal spray vaccine could cause more cases of flu, should the vaccine suddenly become effective again. Apparently, scientists are also guilty of “magical thinking” and believe that somehow, a vaccine that’s consistently not worked well over a period of years will randomly become effective. (RELATED: Learn more about the pitfalls of vaccine science at Vaccines.news)

A team of scientists from the University of Pittsburgh Medical School say that their recent analysis indicated that the CDC’s recommendation to not offer the nasal spray “could lead to more flu illness in the U.S. if the inhaled vaccine becomes effective again or if not having the choice of the needle-less vaccine substantially reduces immunization rates.”

The researchers are part of the Pittsburgh Vaccination Research Group, also known as “PittVax” for short, and they are one of the few teams in the US who track cases of influenza in people who did or did not receive a vaccine.

Science Daily reports, “Under current conditions, only offering the needle-delivered flu vaccine results in 20.9 percent of children ages 2 to 8 getting the flu, compared with 23.5 percent if both the needle and nasal vaccine are offered.” In other words, as it stands more children will get sick if both traditional needle vaccines and nasal vaccines are administered, but for some reason, these researchers still believe that the mist vaccine could be of use. According to them, other countries have not experienced the same lack of efficacy as is seen here in the US.

“It is possible that future research will find ways to make LAIV [the nasal spray vaccine] more effective in the U.S. again, in which case the CDC recommendations will need to be reexamined, ” the study’s lead author Kenneth J. Smith, M.D., M.S.,, who is also a professor of medicine and clinical and translational science at the university.

According to Smith, it would only take “relatively small changes” for the vaccine to become popular again. In order to fall back into the good graces of the pro-vaccine world, it would have to prevent the flu in 63 percent of recipients. The researchers also claim that if vaccine rates were to fall by 18.7 percent or more due to the unavailability of the nasal spray vaccine, it would behoove the CDC to recommend both anyways. This, of course, is problematic because one cannot definitively say more people would get vaccinated if the spray was made available again. And, we again run into the fact that the FluMist vaccine could actually contribute to the spread of disease.

As Green Med Info writer Celeste McGovern explains, people vaccinated with a live attenuated virus, like FluMist (also known as Fluenz) will shed the virus for up to 11 days after administration. It’s no wonder that more people get the flu when this vaccine is given. Flu shots, in general, have consistently been scrutinized for their inefficacy, along with other issues, but this one certainly takes the cake.

Sources:

ScienceDaily.com

LiveScience.com

TheVaccineReaction.org

GreenMedInfo.com

Comprehensive list of states with the highest toxic vaccine rates

The vaccine debate rages on, with some vehemently pro and others vehemently against vaccine mandates and toxic ingredients. The mainstream media and medical community would have us believe that vaccines are 100 percent effective and 100 percent safe, 100 percent of the time. Anyone who has ever taken the time to read a vaccine insert can tell you that such a claim is simply not true. Nonetheless, the media and most U.S. states continue to push hard for every citizen to be immunized with a long list of vaccines that often contain hazardous ingredients (such as mercury and aluminum).

Though 47 U.S. states allow vaccine exemptions, it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain such an exemption for religious or personal reasons. Many states will only grant an exemption if a child is allergic or has some other health reason – a compromised immune system due to chemotherapy, for example. The decision not to vaccinate can have far-reaching implications for a family in terms of access to schooling and other issues.

The three vaccines which are touted as being the most important, since they are for the most common and supposedly most easily preventable diseases, are: The MMR vaccine (mumps, measles and rubella); the DTaP vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough); and the varicella vaccine (chickenpox).

Four of the states have really pushed for all three vaccinations, namely Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Nebraska.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, other states which have thrown their full weight behind immunization programs are:

MMR: North Dakota, New Mexico, Ohio, Mississippi, Tennessee and Maryland.

DTaP: California, New Mexico, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois and New Hampshire.

Varicella: Kansas, North Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, Connecticut and New Hampshire.

The mainstream media continues to insist that vaccination offers “herd immunity,” and that those who refuse to inoculate their children are compromising the health of the community in general. CBS News, for example, notes, “U.S. medical experts spoke with CBS News for World Immunization Week (April 24 – 30) and raised concern about the number of Americans who still aren’t vaccinating their children or getting their own shots, which continues to fuel preventable disease outbreaks.”

The article then goes on to reference the huge increase in the number of mumps cases in the U.S. in recent years – up from 229 cases in 2012, to 5,748 cases in 2016. It also notes that colleges have been particularly hard hit.

While it is true that the number of mumps cases on college campuses has been increasing dramatically, it is simply not true to blame this on the people who are choosing not to inject themselves or their children with these toxic shots.

The CBS article claims, “The MMR vaccine doesn’t offer total protection, but after two doses, 97 percent of people are protected, say experts. Immunization resulted in a 79 percent drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2015 worldwide.”

Is that true? Well, let’s look more closely at some of the campus outbreaks.

In 2016, 40 Harvard University students were infected with mumps – all had been vaccinated. In that same year, 193 students were diagnosed with mumps at the University of Missouri. Again, every single one of those students had received both doses of the MMR shot before getting sick.

These examples fly in the face of the “herd immunity” theory, which states that if a very high percentage of people in a community are vaccinated there won’t be enough vulnerable people left to spread the disease, thereby ensuring that everybody is protected. If that theory were true, the Harvard and Missouri cases could never have taken place. (RELATED: Did you read about the vaccine-resistant mumps outbreak on Long Island?)

Though evidence is mounting that vaccines are far less effective than we have been led to believe, many are pushing for even more vaccinations to be added to the schedule. In spite of the MMR vaccine’s links to autism and other serious health problems, vaccine advocates like Dr. Paul Offit insist that adding a third MMR shot to the schedule will solve the problem.

Anyone who dares to look at the situation objectively is sure to realize that there has to be some other motivation behind the push for this ever-increasing number of vaccinations.

Sources:

CBSNews.com

NaturalNews.com

ANH-USA.org

Vaccine industry goes “nuclear” in push for new law that would deny you YOUR JOB if you aren’t vaccinated

North Carolina Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, a Republican, has introduced new legislation that, taken to its logical end, might eventually provision for employers to force their employees to be vaccinated under the guise of “wellness.”

House Resolution 1313, known as the “Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act,” contains certain provisions for “disease prevention” that, should employees refuse them, might end up costing them their jobs. That, or employees could face penalties in the form of ostracization or even higher insurance rates.

Based on the legislation’s open-ended language, employees could one day be refused the option of rejecting whatever their employers decide is appropriate for wellness and disease prevention, including government-recommended vaccines.

While an employee could petition his or her employer for a “reasonable alternative standard,” according to the bill, the Public Health Service Act is what actually defines this terminology — and this legal definition leaves wide open the possibility for employers to force their employees to abide by vaccination requirements set forth by the government.

“The concern is this bill if passed into law would be applied to penalize employees who do not get regular vaccines imposed by an employee wellness plan,” warns Health Impact News.

You can read the full text of H.R. 1313 at Congress.gov.

Obamacare threatens penalties, higher insurance premiums for employees who refuse ‘disease prevention’ vaccinations

Despite being the main sponsor of the bill, Rep. Foxx isn’t necessarily its brainchild. Where the tricky language in H.R. 1313 actually stems from is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare. In it, provisions for implementing employer health promotion and prevention programs are outlined in further detail, as are the potential penalties for failing to abide by them.

As explained by Health Impact News, employer health promotion and prevention programs can already provide incentives and rewards for employee compliance, as well as “surcharges” and “penalties” for non-compliance. What are these penalties, you might be asking yourself? Higher insurance premiums, for one.

According to the text of H.R. 1313, employees who abide by their employers’ wellness guidelines, which may include compulsory vaccinations, can be awarded up to 50 percent off their insurance premiums. Employees who do not abide by these wellness guidelines, on the other hand, could end up paying 50 percent more than their vaccinated co-workers.

“H.R. 1313 is indeed a threat to anyone employed by a company or large organization that offers a ‘wellness’ program and partners with government and Pharma to ‘give carrots and apply sticks’ to employees who do or do not go along with government endorsed ‘standard of care,’ which includes receipt of federally recommended vaccines, whether the language in this bill says the word ‘vaccine’ or not,” warns the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).

NVIC is urging the public to contact their congressional representatives and two state senators to voice opposition to H.R. 1313. No employee should be forced to take vaccines in exchange for lowered healthcare premiums or other company perks, health freedom experts warn. This is medical discrimination at its most damning, and it can’t be allowed to become the standard.

You can visit the NVIC Advocacy Portal to contact your respective congressmen. Once there, click on the “National” tab and you will be directed to the appropriate page for contacting your representatives and senators.

You can also contact Rep. Virginia Foxx and let her know how you feel about this bill. Remember to be polite but firm in your opposition, explaining to her your concerns about where this bill could lead as an affront to health freedom.

Sources:

HealthImpactNews.com

Congress.gov

Thousands damaged by shingles vaccine are trying to sue Merck

What was supposed to be a cure for shingles has brought on worse complications. Thousands have attempted to file lawsuits against American pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. for problems associated with their product Zostavax. In an interview with TROFire.com, Troy Bouk, Associate Attorney at the Levin Papantonio law firm, stated that the side effects of the shingles vaccine included meningitis, encephalitis, stroke, palsy, and many others. According to Bouk, these side effects are all features of shingles—and with the vaccine created from a live strain of the virus, it’s no wonder that Zostavax has caused people to experience these conditions.

Zostavax was approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Bouk said. The group has since recommended that only people 60 and above should take the vaccine. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), on the other hand, approved Zostavax for people 50 and above, states TheFreeThoughtProject.com. The CDC has warned that people within the 50 to 59 age group may lose the alleged protection benefits of the vaccine by the time the reach 60, however.

“Let’s say you’re 55 years old. It may stay in your system till you’re 60, but you actually are at the greatest risk of getting shingles when you’re in your 60s. That’s why the CDC recommends that you really don’t get it until you’re in your 60s, because that’s probably when you’re going to need it the most,” Bouk said.

On the efficacy of the vaccine, the CDC has stated that it only reduced the risk of shingles by a mere 51 percent, making its true potency uncertain.

This unpredictability is the reason why attorney Marc J. Bern of Marc J. Bern & Partners LLP has “thousands of complaints” that have yet to be filed in Philadelphia, Penn. In a statement to FiercePharma.com, Bern has said that the injuries run “the gamut from contracting shingles as a result of the vaccine all the way to serious personal injuries such as blindness in one eye, individuals who have serious paralysis in their extremities, brain damage, all the way to death.”

In an additional comment, Bern stated that he thought “Merck has failed terribly … to warn about the very serious side effects and the failure of the vaccine to do what they claim it does.” (Related: Shingles vaccine made with pig gelatin, MSG and residual components of human DNA from an aborted fetus. Why?)

Bern has said that his firm has been examining the drug “for quite some time”, and that the litigation has “merits.” The attorney has also expressed his belief that the cases should be grouped together for mass tort status. Another attorney, Michael Katz, agrees with Bern.

In response, a spokesperson for Merck has stated that “Nothing is more important to Merck than the safety of our medicines and vaccines.”

If that’s the case, then why are thousands of people experiencing ailments associated with the disease the vaccine is supposed to cure? Because it’s made from the same virus, that’s why. Is it wonder why Zostavax is causing more harm than good? News and other media concerning vaccines and drug companies can be read over at Vaccines.news and BigPharmaNews.com.

Zostavax facts

• Zostavax was approved by the FDA in 2006.
• In 2016, Zostavax pulled in $749 million in sales for Merck.
• Currently, Zostavax is the only approved shingles vaccine in the United States. GlaxoSmithKline is working on a second shingles vaccine called Shingrix. The drug manufacturer is still seeking the approval of the FDA for their drug.

Sources include:
TROFire.com
TheFreeThoughtProject.com
FiercePharma.com
ForThePeople.com