New Study: Direct Link Between Vaccines and Infant Mortality – TSA Set to Sue Texas Groping Ban – Cop Trespasses, Arrests Woman for Taking Video
Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, June 23, 2011
A shocking new study published in a prestigious medical journal has found a direct statistical link between higher vaccine doses and infant mortality rates in the developed world, suggesting that the increasing number of inoculations being forced upon children by medical authorities, particularly in the United States which administers the highest number of vaccines and also has the highest number of infant deaths, is in fact having a detrimental impact on health.
The study, entitled Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?, was conducted by Neil Z. Miller and Gary S. Goldman. It was published in the reputable Human and Experimental Toxicology journal, which is indexed by the National Library of Medicine.
According to his biography, “Goldman has served as a reviewer for the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Vaccine, AJMC, ERV, ERD, JEADV,and British Medical Journal (BMJ). He is included on the Editorial Board of Research and Reviews in BioSciences.”
Miller, a medical research journalist and the Director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute, has been studying the dangers of vaccines for 25 years.
“Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates,” the study found, adding that the results demand an “essential” inquiry into the correlation between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and infant mortality rates.
Despite the fact that the United States administers the highest number of vaccine doses to children in the entire developed world, 26 before infants reach the age of one, its infant mortality rate is higher than 33 other nations, all of which administer less vaccines. The study clearly illustrates the fact that developed countries which administer less vaccines have lower infant mortality rates, suggesting a direct statistical link between vaccination side-effects and infant deaths.
For example, the two developed countries that require children be immunized with the least amount of vaccines, Japan and Sweden, also top the table for the lowest infant mortality rates.
Of the top ten developed countries with the lowest infant mortality rates, seven of the ten also appear in the top ten table of countries that administer the least vaccines.
When looked at in comparison, the table of countries ordered by which ones administer the least vaccines compared to the table which orders countries based on infant mortality rates is very similar.
Despite the fact that it administers the most vaccines, the United States has the highest infant mortality rate of all developed countries, with an average of 6.22 deaths per 1000 live births. The US has a far higher infant mortality rate than the likes of Cuba or Slovenia despite spending vastly more on health care.
Click for enlargement. The table on the left shows the countries with the lowest infant deaths at the top of the list. The table on the right shows the countries with the lowest number of vaccines administered at the top of the list. Notice a pattern? The United States, which administers the highest number of vaccines to children in the developed world, also has the highest number of infant deaths per 1000 births in the developed world.
The correlation between higher numbers of vaccines and infant mortality figures takes on an altogether more sinister context when we consider the fact that during the February 2010 TED conference, Bill Gates, an enthusiastic proponent of vaccination programs, openly stated that vaccines should be used to lower global population in the pursuit of reducing CO2 emissions.
Gates is an avowed eugenicist who is committed to drastically reducing the world’s population in the name of combating global warming. This is alarming given the fact that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funds the production and distribution of vaccines to the third world.
Decrying the fact that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”
Gates followed this up at the July 2010 Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen Colorado by advocating so-called “death panels,” implying that elderly patients undergoing expensive health care treatments should instead be left to die and the money spent elsewhere.
As one of the richest men on the planet, Gates routinely meets with other billionaires in secret to discuss ways of lowering the global population. The last such confab, also attended by David Rockefeller Jr, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey, took place on May 5th 2009 at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the Rockefeller University in Manhattan.
Parents are becoming increasingly educated about the risks posed by the ever-rising numbers of vaccines being forced upon their children. The US childhood immunization schedule now recommends that all infants receive 26 vaccine doses before they even reach the age of one. A Rasmussen poll conducted last August found that that 52 per cent of Americans were concerned about the safety of vaccines.
Vaccine side-effects, injuries and deaths are skyrocketing, but this in turn is causing the cover-up overseen by the pharmaceutical industry to implode, leading more people to resist vaccines globally in the knowledge that the inoculations are more closely related to profit-making than protecting public health.
Read the full study below.
Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, June 23, 2011
With a bill that would ban invasive TSA pat downs in Texas set to be heard by the state legislature on Friday, the federal agency has indicated that it will take legal action to prevent the law being implemented, indicating that the government could once again resort to threatening Texas with a blockade that would impose a de facto “no fly zone” over the state.
The House version of SB 29, a bill that would punish any TSA agent who “touches the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of the other person, including touching through clothing,” with a year in jail or a $4,000 fine, was initially shot down last month despite passing the Texas House unanimously after the Justice Department resorted to threats of financial terrorism in resolving to impose a federal blockade to prevent flights operating out of Texas airports.
The DoJ threat to impose a federal blockade against Texas has not been withdrawn, but Robert Mann Jr., president of R.W. Mann & Company, Inc., an airline industry consulting firm in Port Washington, New York, told Forbes that the threat was “not viable,” labeling the idea that the feds would shut down an entire state a “non-starter”.
Following a gargantuan lobbying effort on behalf of pressure groups, Governor Rick Perry was forced to add the legislation to a special session earlier this week and the bill is set to be heard on Friday. State Senator Dan Patrick, the leading sponsor behind the bill, is already confident that the legislation has enough votes for passage.
But although the bill looks like it will sail through, the TSA is determined to turn the vote into little more than a symbolic gesture, by promising to pursue legal action to derail Texas’ efforts to make TSA groping a felony.
“We will carefully review the bill that the legislature brings forward,” the TSA announced in a statement. “Should a bill pass that limits the ability of TSA and its employees to perform its responsibilities and jeopardizes the safety of the public, we will take whatever legal action is appropriate to ensure travelers are safe when they fly from Texas or any other state.”
The agency is expected to argue that the groping ban is a violation of the Supremacy Clause to the US Constitution, which according to TSA lawyers gives the federal government authority over the states. However, the Supremacy Clause merely states that the Constitution is supreme, not that the authority of the government is supreme. Indeed, if anything the Supremacy Clause works in favor of the anti-pat down bill because it reinforces the protections guaranteed by the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office has written a letter to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who many blame for putting pressure on Texas Senators that led to the mothballing of the original bill, calling for language to be added to SB 29 specifying that the invasive pat down is only an offense if it is deemed “constitutionally unreasonable”.
Abbott sees the addition of this amendment as a way of avoiding a constitutional fight with the feds, but others will merely see it as a watering down of the bill since the legislation already makes it clear that the search is an offense if it is not backed up by “probable cause,” in other words substantive evidence that a crime is about to be committed that provides reasonable grounds for the TSA to violate an individual’s 4th Amendment rights.
Aside from all the constitutional minutia, the fact is that a police officer, an FBI agent, a park ranger, or anyone else in a position of authority cannot legally stick their hands down an individual’s pants without probable cause in any situation, so why should the TSA be any different?
Meanwhile, lawmakers in Idaho are set to follow Texas’ lead by resurrecting their own legislation that would ban invasive pat downs in the state.
“Rep. Phil Hart, R-Athol, told IdahoReporter.com said he may address search methods in the next legislative session, set to begin in January.” “I do plan on revisiting the issue,” said Hart, who previously attempted to push through a bill that would have limited the use of naked body scanners in the state last year.
June 23, 2011
As Officer Mario Masic of the Rochester, New York, police demonstrates in the video below, it is no longer safe to shoot video on your own property in America.
It is entirely legal to stand on your own front yard and photograph the police or anybody else in a public street.
But if the police think you’re “anti-cop,” they’re going to violate your rights and arrest you. Masic considered Emily Good’s iPhone recording a threatening act opposed to the authority of the police – as they searched a man for drugs outside of her home – and so he arrested her after demanding she go back insider her home and she refused, citing her property rights.
The fact is the cop trespassed on her property and threatened her. But then property rights in America are almost completely gone now. Cops no longer respect the law or the Constitution. They are not much different than cops in third world hell-holes like Mexico.
The only thing that stands between the people and total police control is the Second Amendment. Far too many of our so-called “representatives” are working to nullify that.
It’s only a matter of time before we descend into a total police state, that is unless people begin to stand up for the rights.
See the RT story on the incient here.