Magnetic Fuel Saver | Debunking Mainstream Pseudoscience

The use of permanent magnets to treat fuel for increased efficiency have come under fire by so-called “experts” in the mainstream scientific world for many years. Let’s look at the over all concept and what they have to say for themselves, especially when they think they’re qualified to even test the idea.

There are many articles from mainstream that attempt to debunk the validity of magnets and their treatment of fuel and I want to share a few things here that I believe may suggest that the testing methods they are relying on are completely bogus and rooted in ignorance.

It is shameful that these articles are available because the only thing they do is misinform, mislead and corrupt the average naive reader. The average person will think that just because they are associated with a .edu website or a famous magazine, that it actually means something.

If anyone wants to test where their own personal perception is at in relation to mainstream “experts”, I’d highly recommend reading my blog post on vaccines called: Vaccination Fauxscination. It shows that not only are mainstream information “authorities” automatically not accurate, they are to be viewed more cautiously than any other source of information.

Anyway, last night, someone was posting “proof” that magnetic fuel savers are bogus and he posted several references. I’m open minded so I took the time to read his referenced links and was completely appalled at the audacity of these “experts” to pass off their analysis as a credible expose on how magnets can’t increase fuel efficiency. Even worse, this person thinks he is an expert on such matters because he grabs whatever reference agrees with him automatically and they are from either a university or a national magazine.

Let’s get on with it. Permanent magnets are claimed to be able to treat fuel such as gasoline, diesel, natural gas, liquid propane gas, and fuel oil.

The bare bones concept of how they are supposed to work is this: Hydrocarbon fuel molecules are clustered together very tightly and when moving through a magnetic field, the clusters are supposed to break apart so there is more surface area of the fuel molecules exposed and this allows for more fuel to burn.

If more of the fuel can burn, there will be more power with a reduction in emissions and in the case of an automotive application, there will be more gas mileage. Is this true? Does this actually work on natural gas and can something like a natural gas boiler for example be made to use less fuel by putting magnets on the fuel line? There are obviously plenty of other possible scenarios that we could propose.

When using magnets on fuel, there are many things that need to be taken into consideration such as: magnetic polarity that is touching the fuel, geometrical relationship between the magnetic field and the fuel moving through a line, the strength of the magnetic field as well as a few other subtleties that are generally completely unknown to the mainstream pseudo-scientists. And unfortunately, these are generally unknown to most manufacturers of these very devices as well.

Let’s discuss gasoline first because it is the one the “experts” get the most heated about. And then I’m going to reveal the one key concept that none of them appear to know anything about OR they’re afraid to tell you because it would show exactly why many of their bogus tests are flawed to the core.

There are many companies that make magnets for gasoline fuel lines on automobiles and they’re usually called “Magnetic Fuel Savers.” These come in all shapes and sizes with magnetic configurations of all varieties. Some have a north and south both hitting the fuel and just about any other variation possible. Some require cutting the fuel line to slip them on but most can be clamped on the outside.

Now I want to show one of the “references” that prove magnetic fuel savers don’t work. I’m only going to discuss one and it is from Popular Mechanics magazine. It is one of the most well-known magazines there is and the average person that has absolutely no idea about the real science behind any of this would just blindly believe what the magazine’s “experts” claim.

Here it is:

As painful as that article is to read, I’ll go over some of the points that are too ignorant to comment on, but I will anyway because that is the purpose of my post. I’ll reserve my commenting to the magnetic fuel saver section since that is the topic at hand but I will make a comment later that will apply to all of them.

The article states: “There are dozens of fuel-line magnets on the market. We tested two.

Ok, at least they admit at the end that just the ones they tested don’t work. But if there are dozens available, why test two? I’m not interested in excuses such as it would take too much time, or cost too much money, or two is suitable to reflect the general results from all of them, etc… The magazine is either a very credible scientific resource for the public or it is junk science. What about testing the best of all products available with other considerations that I’ll address later?

The article also says: “According to the people selling these devices, as gasoline flows past the magnet, the magnetic field will ‘break apart clusters of fuel molecules so gas burns more efficiently.‘”

Well, that is part of the story but even most manufactures don’t know why their own products are really supposed to work. I point this out just to mention that this is only PART of the story – there is more but of course the Popular Mechanics article appears clueless as to what other facts are alluding them.

The article goes on to say: “Problem: Gasoline molecules aren’t magnetic, not at all. But wait, there’s more. If the fuel line is steel, as many are, the lines of magnetic flux will follow the fuel-line walls instead of passing through the fuel.

First of all, virtually EVERY molecule at the molecular and atomic level is susceptible to a magnetic field so that is patently false! And to be sarcastic by saying “But wait, there’s more” as if knocking some old snake oil salesman (by the way – snake oil is full of essential fatty acids and is very healthy) is appalling, especially when the humor is rooted in ignorance.

Here is the definition of something that will come in handy later in this post:

I just want to point out this part of the definition for now: “Ortho-hydrogen and para-hydrogen – Two types of molecular hydrogen (ortho and para) are known. These differ in the magnetic interactions of the protons due to the spinning motions of the protons. In ortho-hydrogen, the spins of both protons are aligned in the same direction—that is, they are parallel. In para-hydrogen, the spins are aligned in opposite directions and are therefore antiparallel. The relationship of spin alignments determines the magnetic properties of the atoms.

So Popular Mechanics is now claiming something quite absurd – and that is that hydrocarbons (gasoline) do not contain hydrogen. Otherwise, how can the author’s claims be accurate that gasoline isn’t magnetic?

The very foundation of the mass in hydrogen, the only thing that ever “burns” in gasoline anyway (every hydrocarbon fuel is hydrogen power), has magnetic properties in the very proton’s that make it up! And these magnetic properties are influenced by a magnetic field as a matter of scientific fact, which is a very extensive science all on its own.

Second of all, IF the magnetic field has sufficient strength, and most average ceramic magnets are, the magnetic field will penetrate the steel tube and WILL pass through the fuel. Only SOME of the magnetic field will be taken by the steel.

Here is a challenge to anyone that thinks they’re one of those “open minded skeptics”, which of course that is on oxymoron as a skeptic is intrinsically biased and this defeats the open-minded requirement, but anyway…

I hope my words aren’t taken out of context, which “skeptics” are masters at. I’m not asking anyone to have their head so open their brains fall out. I’m just saying that anyone truly open minded will not look at something through a biased filter, which is EXACTLY what skepticism is.

Go take a sheet of steel that is the same thickness as a typical fuel line tube, which is not all that thick. Take two typical magnets like this that costs $1~3:

Put one on one side of the sheet of steel. It will stick since steel is magnetic. It doesn’t matter what polarity is used. Now, take the second magnet and bring it towards the steel sheet on the other side by the location where the first magnet is placed. If you have the opposite polarity, it will be drawn to that area stronger than any other place since the first magnet is pulling it. And, if you have the same polarity facing, it will be repelled by that spot on the magnetic sheet.

Why does the second magnet either get attracted stronger to that spot or get repelled depending on which polarity you are approaching the steel with? Because the magnetic field is not completely being taken by the steel and is passing right through and if there was gasoline in that area, that magnetic field would be passing right through it!

I could almost bet that any “skeptic” won’t try this test because they would be too uncomfortable with the fact that what I am saying is a valid fact and what Popular Mechanics is claiming is completely bogus and pseudo-scientific. Its a shame really, because I grew up loving this magazine.

Here is something interesting about what is in the article: “THE DYNO SAYS: As we suspected, neither device had any significant effect on performance or economy.

If you notice, all other fuel saving products had a decrease in performance. However, the author did not claim this with the magnetic fuel savers. The word significant is a very slimy and slippery word. There are multitudes of meanings that can be assigned to the word significant. Yes, significant to who? Me, John Doe down the street, the Air Force or someone else?

It should be obvious from the ill-tainted flavor of the article that if there was a decrease, that would have been proudly exclaimed in that sentence but it was not. I’m suggesting that there WAS an increase but at a level too small for their liking so they do not even admit what it was and simply say it didn’t have “any significant effect.” That is manipulation language commonly used by pseudo-scientists that try to debunk something and if they can’t, they downplay any result as being “insignificant.”

I can admit that I am postulating this but I think by looking at this article for what it is, it is common sense. In any case, I concede that I cannot prove he had at least a small difference. But again, remember I said there is a crucial key that none of the debunking skeptics ever want to discuss, let alone the fact that they have no idea how magnetic fuel savers are supposed to work.

I’ll skip to the end of the article and won’t comment on the other fuel saving technologies. Most of them actually do work but that is another topic.

Here is the entire summary: “THE MORAL OF THE STORY
We’ve tested nowhere near all of the fuel-saver gadgets on the market, and I’m sure purveyors of others will be waiting in our lobby soon. But not one of the items we tested worked. At all. There’s no ignoring the laws of physics, people. Your vehicle already burns over 99 percent of the fuel you pay for. Less than 1 percent is squandered as partially burned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide before the exhaust hits the catalytic converter for the last laundering. Even if one of these miracle gadgets could make the combustion process 100 percent complete, the improvement in mileage resulting would be 1 percent. Any device that claims quantum-level increases needs to be examined with considerable skepticism.”

After cutting through the undeserved sarcasm, I must say that this author doesn’t want to get into a debate about the laws of physics because he apparently doesn’t know what they are. Would that be closed equilibrium thermodynamics that he learned in school or non-equilibrium open thermodynamics that he has probably never heard of and knows nothing about? Every magnet is a dipole out of equilibrium but that also is another topic altogether.

It burns 99%? In what form? He doesn’t even mention the formation of any nitrogen compounds, which do get formed and he neglected to mention the formation of water. But we’ll let those slide since it isn’t that important to the point at hand.

So he claims that burning any more fuel would result in less than a 1% increase. And then he equates 1% to a quantum level of benefit!? Should I laugh or cry?

Just for a bit, I want to touch on the orthohydrogen-parahydrogen concept as it relates to magnetic influence on fuel. Then, I’ll explain one of the keys that I mentioned in the beginning that I’d share with you.

This is a simplified diagram of a combustible fuel molecule with parahydrogen:

You can see that the hydrogen atoms are clung together very tightly and they are not polarized.

In this image, you can see the difference with orthohydrogen:

There is way more space for oxygen to get to the hydrogen in order for more of the fuel to burn. It is VERY established and known in science that orthohydrogen will release about 3 times more power than parahydrogen for the exact same volume! Please don’t take my word for it – here is a Google Search for: Orthohydrogen & Parahydrogen

You’re not going to get three times as much power or mileage from your vehicle because simply, there isn’t a full conversion of fuel to the orthohydrogen form and with a simple spark ignition, there are serious limitations. But most assuredly, there is an increase in power released in a gasoline or even diesel engine for the same reasons – IF, the fuel is treated with a magnetic field PROPERLY.

When the fuel goes through the a properly arranged magnetic field, THIS is what is happening to the fuel and why more power is released and this is in addition to the fuel molecules breaking up into smaller clusters.

Now that I have that out of my system, here’s the key I was telling you about and this does NOT automatically give validity to those particular gadgets he was testing.

The gas fuel mixture is always kept very closely to 14.6-14.7 (depending on whose book your read) parts air to 1 part fuel. This is the air:fuel mixture and there is an entire science behind this. Unfortunately, that area of science is just as ignorant about the facts about fuel combustion as the Popular Mechanics article is.

In old carburetor cars, it is easy to change the mixture by tuning the gas jets. They can be opened or closed more or less to increase or decrease the mixture. If the gas is increased compared to the air, it is considered to be rich and if the gas is less than it normally “should” be compared to the air, then it is lean.

In almost all modern gasoline cars, they use electronic computer controlled fuel injection. That means a computer determines how rich or lean the air:fuel ratio is. I’ll keep this simple. The exhaust leaves the engine and will pass by one or more oxygen sensors.

The oxygen sensor sends out a voltage and it is common for it to be between 0.1 volts and 1.0 volts. At least in many Japanese import cars it is that way for example. This voltage is read by the fuel computer. The higher the voltage, the more fuel will be pumped to richen it up and the lower the voltage, the less fuel will be pumped to lean it out.

If the oxygen sensor sees that the burn is too thin and leaned out, it will richen it up. If a fuel saving device is put on a car with electronic injection, and if the device is really working, the exhaust will appear to be lean to the oxygen sensor and it will send a higher voltage to the computer so that it pumps more fuel to richen it back up – thus sabotaging any fuel increases!

So, for the most part, it is a complete fallacy that an electronic fuel injected car is even a valid test vehicle to test whether or not a fuel saving device is working or not! Increases in fuel burning will result in a thinner exhaust that will mistakenly be taken as being too lean of a burn and the computer will pump more gas, which will negate the improvement. This is just an underlying indisputable fact.

Now don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying all fuel saving devices work and electronic fuel injected cars are hiding all the results. I AM saying that devices that DO work are being sabotaged plain and simple.

And, if something works TOO well, it could actually cause a decrease in fuel efficiency because more and more fuel will be pumped in to richen it up.

Here’s another thing – the fuel computer records these ratios over time. They build a benchmark to judge where the default setting should be at any given time. If someone tests one device and it does have a change in the fuel burning, the computer will record this and will adjust accordingly.

If the “scientist” that does the test goes on to test another device, it is automatically a fraudulent test because the baseline has already been influenced by the previous test and it is therefore completely worthless.

To remedy this, the battery cable needs to be disconnected from the battery so that the fuel computer can reset and depending on the car, it can take more or less time. An hour should do fine for most cars but could take overnight on others. But of course this abomination of a test done by Popular Mechanics hasn’t taken any of this into consideration.

Isn’t it interesting that one of the leading technical magazines in the world somehow forgot to consider these very well known points when it comes to gasoline engines? I find it oddly interesting as if they may be knowingly going to bat for the oil companies or something similar. Conspiracy or not, to ignore these facts is a sure sign that we’re dealing with complete amateurs or impostors!

Anyway, it is possible to still get great benefits from products that actually do work. But ALL the benefit will not be gained because of the above-mentioned reasons. They’ll still work and you can get ever greater results by tricking the fuel computer.

There are remedies for this kind of built-in sabotage. Circuits can be built that go between the oxygen sensor and the fuel computer. The circuit reads the voltage from the oxygen sensor and drops it a certain percentage and then sends the lower voltage to the fuel computer to lean it out.

I must warn you that you assume all risk if you do any of this. I’m just providing information that mainstream sources have no integrity to provide you with.

If you’re engine is leaned out with a circuit like this without having some additive or other device that actually causes more of the fuel to burn, you could damage your engine. The engine can overheat and destroy itself. With a regular spark ignition, it really needs a good fuel:air mixture – now take note I say with a regular spark ignition.

There are other options besides a spark that can cause much more power release from the fuel but that is for another post later that further shreds the bogus teachings by mainstream pseudo-scientists.

Back to the oxygen sensor trick – as a note, I believe they do not simply just read oxygen but possibly particulate density or something else because things that oxygen sensors sabotage do not necessarily add more oxygen to the fuel so therefore, if the particulate density is less, it could read as more oxygen (meaning too lean) and that means it will richen it back up.

Here is one example of one of these circuits and they are called EFIE’s – Electronic Fuel Injection Enhancer, which I believed may have been coined by a man named George Wiseman that has been involved in research into these topics for years:

Here is the #1 more credible resource anywhere for the EFIE circuit as he has been pioneering it probably longer than anyone, George Wiseman from Eagle Research: EFIE

You can get the how to manual or you can buy one already assembled. You’ll need one for each oxygen sensor on a car. The one I show in the video is from a kit from someone else but George Wiseman’s is definitely the best.

Anyway, so far, it should be obvious that the oxygen sensor issue with fuel savers is very big and Popular Mechanics or other mainstream “experts” won’t touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Now as far as magnets for saving fuel, I go with the one with the most documentation and they have been around longer than anyone. Magnetizer Industrial Technologies are the pioneers in this magnetic fluid conditioning technology. Their technology originated from the very patents of the pioneers in this field and the pioneers were actually involved with the people at Magnetizer. I usually find when going to the source that they have an edge on just about everyone else.

Here are two PDF’s specific to fuel treatment with Magnetizer products:

Introduction To Magnetic Treatment of Fuel

Microscopic Fuel Tests Using Magnetic Fuel Conditioning

Virtually every other company out there are doing their best to knock them off but they just can’t get it right. I read on some company’s websites that they are bragging about how strong their magnetic fields are because they use neo (neodymium iron boron) magnets instead of ceramics. There may be some difference but they’re essentially sabotaging most of their own possible benefits.

But, little do they know a magnetic field that is too strong will actually negate the beneficial effects – so as many of us know – too much is not always a good thing. This is science, not, “let’s throw mud at a wall and see what sticks!”

There are a lot of nuances that are required into be understood in order to get the best results. There is one book that actually discusses the genesis of the Magnetizer technology and that is Magnet Secrets by Peter Lindemann. It is a wealth of information and references, especially for the magnetic treatment of water, which is a whole other issue that the mainstream pseudo-scientists have no business debating.

So as the Popular Mechanics article ends: “We say caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). But there are plenty of people out there who say: “There’s one born every minute.” Prediction: Within a few weeks after the appearance of this article, there will be gas-saving gadgets on the market that tout themselves as “Featured in Popular Mechanics.” Someone will buy them. Probably not you. “”

Obviously the born every minute slur is a reference to P.T. Barnum’s famous quote about a sucker being born every minute. I’d have to say for millions of people to buy a magazine that fills their heads with completely bogus misinformation and unscientific monkey business that I agree – a sucker is born every minute but it looks like they’re all reading Popular Mechanics.

In my next blog post about fuel, I’ll address some things that will broadside the skeptics.

But for now, hopefully everyone can see that just because some article is in some popular magazine it doesn’t mean anything. And some articles are about as valuable as dehydrated water.

Have a Happy Valentines Day everyone!

Posted in Fuel | Leave a comment

Vaccination Fauxscination


Vaccines have been a hot topic for years and those that aren’t in the “vaccines are safe” camp are usually lambasted by the conventional medical establishment as being fringe lunatics. It should be pointed out to the reader that just because something is conventional or popular doesn’t mean it is correct; it simply means it is the popularly accepted view and that is it.

It is a logical fallacy to assume that if something is established or authoritative that it is because it must have been proven to be safe, in the case of a medical example. That is a dangerous assumption and is usually the one that the general population has when they blindly trust what the medical professionals tell them. At one point, believing the world was round was fringe and many people believed it was flat because they trusted the doctrine that the church taught so let’s please keep things in perspective.

More than ever before, millions of mainstream thinkers are rapidly losing faith in the safety claims of vaccines and are starting to question the very premise that the vaccine model rests upon. For even longer, a minority of professionals in the conventional medical field have even been questioning this although it is unpopular and leads to being accused as being a medical heretic if the findings happen to support the idea that there may be flaws in the studies and the entire vaccine model itself.

It is an interesting observation that when published studies are quoted to the average person and the study agrees with the established dogma that vaccines are safe that the study is likely to be believed, especially when the average person has already believed it for a long time.

However, when there is a study that indicates something opposite of the established view and this study has even been subjected to the same peer review process to get published and is quoted to the same person, the person develops skepticism automatically about the validity of the study although it is completely hypocritical and blatantly painted with a double standard.

When the study supports what the person already believes, it is acceptable. But when the study challenges the current belief, the person suddenly has a problem with accepting it as being just as valid of a scientific study. Again, this is not about the person recognizing what the facts are from an objective point of view; it is an emotional reaction that has its root in the person’s normalcy bias kicking in so the person feels safe.

Please understand the term normalcy bias. It is usually used to refer to people’s survival programming kicking in during times of tragedy or accidents. But it is simple common sense that it applies to anything that comes along to upset someone’s applecart. Wikipedia is a bogus reference but in this case I’ll use it since the definition is actually correct:

The normalcy bias refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of the government to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred that it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.

Let’s use some common sense to paraphrase this definition as it applies to vaccine safety believers that encounter evidence and/or proof that contradicts their preconceived belief:

The normalcy bias refers to a mental state people enter when facing something that upsets their applecart. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a change in their paradigm and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a change in their belief system. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since their applecart hasn’t been upset before in regards to whatever subject is at hand that it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with the change once it has happened.

Basically, it is the ego operating in pure survival mode so that the person feels safe. And, that what they believe already must be true and anything that shows that their beliefs may have always been unfounded is simply too uncomfortable to cope with. This is human nature and is forgivable, but at least if someone knows and is aware that they are subject to this emotional and irrational reaction, they may be more prepared to honestly consider the information that could potentially transform their established paradigm.

In other words, and this is a whole different topic, but the person’s ideomotor reaction is kicking in. It takes pre-programmed subconscious belief structures and uses that as a benchmark for which the nervous system will use when it reacts to information that is different from the current belief. The nervous system is the first to react to unconscious stimuli and the reaction circumvents rational conscious thinking.

The above addresses the predictable psychological reaction of someone that believes vaccines are safe when they are introduced to evidence and proof that their beliefs are rooted in one false premise after another.

It is time to address the typical mentality of someone that is pro-vaccine and is supposed to be a professional in the field. This is quite easy to do by simply using some common sense and basic critical thinking while reviewing their articles. So, let’s take a look at one of many articles that not only presents a supportive view of vaccines but includes an attack against those that believe some vaccines under some circumstances are not safe.

Recently, I was recently introduced to an article as proof that the entire autism-vaccine connection is a fraud: Vaccine-Autism Researcher Should Be Prosecuted

Let’s keep this simple. Wakefield had a study that only pointed out that there are some things that need to be questioned. Please make sure to see interviews with him that are provided at the end of this post. It is one of the hottest and politically dangerous topics in the vaccine field today.

The above article claims that Wakefield’s entire study was a fraud. You can read the article yourself, and I really recommend that you do because I will point out some related items along the way if you happen to not catch them yourself.

First of all, before I ever started to read the article, I noticed it was an op-ed article, which simply means it is an opinion editorial. That means it is not a real news story and is inherently biased as this is an intrinsic property of an opinion in and of itself – bias.

Being on a CNN website is 100% irrelevant and adds zero credibility to the story. CNN is not a credible new source to begin with as is most of the mainstream highly censored and highly controlled media in the United States. Later, I’ll give references to the fact that the American media and especially the news is not only an untrustworthy source of information but high fraudulent.

It appears common sense that CNN adds nothing to the story as evidenced by the disclosure at the bottom of the article, “The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Alex B. Berezow.” CNN is only hosting the article plain and simple. Res ipsa loquitur!

I understand that it is easy for people to believe that just because an article is on a major news corporation’s site that it must be some authenticated story, even though most major news stories are not. They are inherently propaganda-like, since they have an obligation to their high paying advertisers to not step on their toes and do whatever they can to promote whatever is in their best financial interest. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is common sense business.

Anyone that thinks I’m simply speculating on this simply has not done their research and is only expressing an opinion rooted in nothing more than a preconceived belief that the news “must” be giving us an honest and unbiased report.

Even if it is a CNN endorsed news story and anyone believes the news has some kind of legal obligation to report the truth, think again! It has already been specifically ruled in a court of law that it is not illegal to falsify the news!

If someone is open minded, they may be interested in seeing this claim backed by not just evidence but proof. And if someone is a skeptic, which there really is no such thing as an “open minded skeptic”, it is an oxymoron, and they think I’m making this up, then they really need to do themselves a favor and do their research.

If there is an emotional or other reaction that automatically surface from within that makes someone feel my claim is “absurd” or otherwise about there being nothing illegal about creating fake news, just remember, that is normal because it is their normalcy bias kicking in to keep them safe. It is too uncomfortable to realize that everything they may have been led to believe has been sprinkled with magic pixie dust and is completely out of touch with reality.

Here is one of the most blatant examples of how a corporation has used their money and influence to legally block the truth from being aired in the news. Why? Because Monsanto was a very high paying advertiser on the FOX news network. This is about Monsanto doing everything they could to prevent the proof that rGBH, the growth hormone commonly used in the diary industry, causes cancer and that the government approved it without ever having tested to see if it was actually safe for humans.

Fox was so afraid of losing the advertising dollars that they did everything they could to get the investigative journalists, a ultra rare breed these days, to drop the issue. Please take 10 minutes and 21 seconds of your life to see one of countless examples of how the news is absolutely suppressed in order for a news agency to protect its advertisers. Monsanto & Cancer

If you have taken the time to do your due diligence and watch that, you can find all the references to the court cases and more on this website: FOX BHG Suit

If anyone allows themselves to accept the facts being presented here, they can never honestly look anyone in the eye and state or look themselves in the mirror and believe that the news is somehow required to tell anyone the truth. And, that they may have been hoodwinked countless times by the news throughout the years but have never had the mental frame of reference to even know that it was a possibility. Nor can they deny the fact that it is completely acceptable to the United States justice system for the news to be falsified.

Do you know that in some magazines, there are full  page ads that are made to look like news articles? They are called advertorials (advertisement editorials). But almost always, in small print at the very top or very bottom, it is stated that it is an advertorial.

Please let this sink in deeply – there are many news stories that appear to be actual “news” stories about something such as a product, technology, drug, medical breakthrough or otherwise – and many of these stories are also advertorials!? But the difference between the television and the magazine is that the television news won’t tell you it is an advertisement and they intentionally mislead you into believing you just watched an authentic news piece!

In television news, the fake news stories that they disguise as real news are referred to as VNR’s or video news releases. General Motors, Intel, Pfizer and Capital One are just a few  examples of companies that get their promotions plugged in a way that fools the audience into thinking it is news. So, how many times have you been duped into believing you just watched a news story? You may not sleep at night if you realized how many times your own news stations have played you, me and everyone else for a fool in this exact way.

Again, if anyone finds this emotionally hard to swallow, it is that dang normalcy bias or ideomotor reaction again. It certainly isn’t easy to read something that is paradigm shattering that rips the conventional applecart to shreds; I know this. But at least I provide references so please permit me to once again prove that what I’m saying isn’t my speculation but is based on indisputable facts: Fake TV News Executive Summary

By the way, here is a summary of this dog and pony “news” fakery in a pdf document version, so you can download it and pass this on: Fake TV News PDF

What is most alarming is that most of the news dealing with politics is the most fabricated of all, especially when it deals with war. They are not advertisements, it’s propaganda, which is technically illegal when used against Americans in the United States. The federal government acts as a clearinghouse for these stories about virtually ever war issue that goes out on the large corporate media, is completely fake and is carefully designed in a Pentagon “public relations” department.

Do you realize that the term PR or public relations was invented by a man who had the job of selling a war to the American people? You think this is a conspiracy theory? The term conspiracy theory was created inside of a think tank specifically for the purpose of painting anyone as an idiot that states anything that goes against the official story.

But here is where the term conspiracy theory technically backfires in the face of those that intended for it to discredit an idea – a theory is beyond a postulation or hypothesis, it is a theory. That means it has withstood the vigorous bashing of an immature idea and is holding as a theory because it has NOT been debunked. It has not fully become a law or an absolute yet, but being a theory, conspiracy theory or not, should be given a lot of respect as most of science is not founded on infallible laws but theories!

And those debunking “skeptics” or actually ignorant cynics are too uneducated to know that if they want to debunk a “conspiracy theory” and they think they have absolute proof of the error of the theory and can PROVE IT, they shouldn’t call it a conspiracy theory anymore because at the first point of debunking, the theory falls flat into oblivion and is not even as much as a flimsy hypothesis anymore!

There are many facts in the following documentary, so followup on the references given in order to know the history of PR (public relations): PsyWar

Just to point it out in case my words are taken out of context, I’m not saying to believe the documentary as a reference, go search out the references and facts stated in it to see if what the documentary is saying is true or not! I already know what the answer is. I allocate a certain percentage of my time on a regular basis to doing nothing more than researching facts, which I know that most people that disagree with what I’m saying have usually done nothing more than regurgitate what they see on the news.

Yes, in the beginning of the documentary, the creators of the video say they may not agree or endorse all the views in the video. However, follow up on the references given in regards to the genesis of public relations and other topics given and you will see beyond a shadow of a doubt what I am saying is true.

Basically, CNN and the other major news stations are psyop tools used by the Pentagon to brainwash the American public into believing that the decisions the White House and Defense Department are making in regards to war and their other international war crime atrocities are in the best interests of the American public. But the facts are that the truth behind most of the motives are the financial interests of the oil companies and other related corporate interests such as defense companies.

Well, I know that I have gone over quite a bit and most had nothing to do with vaccines. But if one thinks about it, how can I honestly expect to have a thoughtful and rational discussion without methodically pointing out the foundation through which we are actually viewing the very topic that we are going to talk about? And, I’m backing it up with not just evidence but proof.

Most skeptics that would read this and refuse to believe what I say would simply try to dismiss my claims as being “unlikely” without even knowing the conscious frame of reference from which they are thinking!

They have simply been hoodwinked by all the bogus propaganda that has been shoved down their throats by the very information “authorities” they gave their power to by blindly believing that the news must be telling them the truth. Unfortunately, the real world is a little more tainted than their rose colored glasses and conformist dispositions have led them to believe.

Anyway, so far I believe I have simply backed what I am saying, which so far includes but is not limited to:

  1. Just because an article on CNN doesn’t mean it is a CNN news piece. And this applies to every major news source.
  2. This particular vaccine article is simply an opinion piece that CNN does not endorse.
  3. A news station can falsify a news story and this is perfectly acceptable to the U.S. justice system.
  4. Many news stories are actually advertisements from companies, which are designed to trick you into thinking it is news and this includes but is not limited to General Motors, Intel, Pfizer and Capital One. (VNR – Video News Releases)

Basically, the mainstream media news is one of the most questionable and least credible sources of information and I gave some verifiable references as to why. Thankfully, the trend is growing in unbiased independent news media that actually not only report the news, but report news that is unpopular to the corporate conglomerates because they don’t have large advertising dollars at stake.

Take just a few minutes to listen to this “ex”-CIA agent give a very insightful comment that most corporate journalists are more like stenographers instead of being journalists that search out secret or unpopular information: Journalist vs Stenographer

There are more points I covered but this should be sufficient in order to show where I’m coming from when I say that anyone that believes vaccines are safe because the media is reporting this basically has absolutely no rational basis to believe such an unsubstantiated myth and that they aren’t even qualified to have their own skepticism towards anyone that believes vaccine are unsafe.

And, they are subject to the irrational and emotional reaction of disbelief in anything that comes along and threatens their point of view (normalcy bias), which never had anything to do with the facts but mostly had to do with simply being told vaccine are safe because the “experts” told them they were.

This includes their belief that they are qualified to understand statistics, studies and other intricacies of a medical study when they see one, when in fact, most medical doctors are not qualified to scientifically analyze a medical study.

I’m not claiming myself to be an authority on analyzing studies. However, a little bit of common sense goes a long way. I used to believe in vaccines and had my fair share growing up on military bases as a military brat going to military hospitals. I used to believe vaccines were not only safe but life saving as I was conditioned to believe UNTIL I actually started to look at both sides.

The view that vaccines are unsafe is not limited to some small fringe population as the establishment would have us believe. This view is actually supported by some of the most credentialed medical experts in the world and much of this is published in journals the establishment considers as credible such as JAMA and others. It is a minority viewpoint that vaccines are questionable but the popularity is irrelevant.

We will get to more direct points concerning vaccines soon but understand that when someone reads some published study that shows vaccines are safe, they believe it when they don’t even know how to analyze the study to begin with. They assume because it is in some medical journal that it must be true. All the reasons that news stories are not automatically true are the same reasons why published medical studies are also not automatically true and are inherently intertwined with financial agendas.

When the FDA approves a drug, vaccine, or other medical procedure, it is assumed by the naive that it has been tested for safety in a reasonable manner and that it was done in a scientific manner. Of course this is what is supposed to be the case. However, there are almost no federal government departments that actually put the people as a priority. Corporate interests are the priority and by definition, this is fascism. And they exercise their fascist agenda through the financial activity called lobbying! Lobbying is the quintessential blending of government and corporate interests.

The reasons FOX sided with Monsanto are the same reasons the FDA usually sides with the pharmaceutical companies and pass their drugs when in the majority of cases, they would never have been passed if the passage of the drugs were actually based on real live scientific evidence.

Did you know that many doctors that sign off on the studies that are supposed to show a drug is safe have never even been involved in the study? They were paid to simply put their autograph on a paper to get it through!

Let me give you a few facts about FDA corruption and their drug approval methods that are even stated by FDA scientists themselves. A few years ago, thousands of FDA scientists were surveyed and here are a few things that were learned:

  • The survey found that 61% of the responding scientists knew of cases where the “Department of Health and Human Services or FDA political appointees have inappropriately injected themselves into FDA determinations or actions.”
  • Out of the nearly 1000 scientists who responded, close to one-fifth or 18.4%, said they had “been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or their conclusions in a FDA scientific document.

The first shows a political influence in scientific matters and the second show that 18.4% of the scientists were essentially asked to lie by exclusion or alteration of data. So, just because the FDA approves something, that does not in and of itself mean that safety was actually a consideration in approving it!

Let’s look at some more FDA fraud and medical quackery:

  • The scientists state in no uncertain terms that they’re afraid to bring up a lot of safety issues with drugs because they’ll be the recipients of retaliation.
  • Nearly one in five said that they “have been pressured to approve or recommend approval” for a drug “despite reservations about the safety, efficacy or quality of the drug.”
  • the agency approved the antibiotic, Ketek, despite serious questions about the drug’s safety and efficacy, and with full knowledge that the clinical study submitted to support Ketek’s approval was fraudulent.
  • Over the past couple of years, the suppression of the scientific process and the muzzling of scientific dissent at the FDA became evident first when officials forced Dr Andrew Mosholder to suppress a link he found between SSRI antidepressants and suicide in children, and Dr Graham went public with allegations about the FDA’s mishandling of the Vioxx matter.

These are a few out of countless instances of FDA fraud. You can see the breakdown of the survey and the rest of the article here – and this example of FDA fraud is only a drop in the bucket: Lawmakers Say FDA Better Clean Up Its Act

So anyone that is naive enough to believe that the FDA actually works to make sure that the public safety is the primary concern needs to simply grow up! They need to become mature enough to realize that the FDA is a puppet arm of the pharmaceutical companies as a matter of fact. And the documentation reveals this fact in no uncertain terms. Get familiar with the term “revolving door.”

Why? Because those that are well placed in the FDA and use their position and corrupt influence in the studies to get drugs pass wind up getting a huge six or seven figure job working for the very drug company that made the drug they helped pass!

This is supposed to be illegal in Japan for example as it is a conflict of interest for a government worker to be able to get a job at a corporation like this for obvious reasons. But in the United States, this isn’t an exception at the FDA, it is the rule. This is the same for the Dept of Agriculture, the E.P.A., Dept of Defense, and so many other departments that it’s ridiculous!

I can provide an entire encyclopedia of facts, many documented in court cases proving countless instances of FDA corruption. I just wanted to provide a bit above just to establish that not only am I saying the FDA is corrupt, the FDA’s own scientists have stated clearly that the FDA is corrupt. So, as it applies to vaccines, having something approved as being safe by the FDA is less than meaningless and things have gotten much worse since 2006.

Vaccine studies are paid for by pharmaceutical giants so don’t think they are immune (pun intended) to corruption because it is supposed to be “scientific” because when it comes to vaccines studies, they are some of the most unscientific of them all, not only in the medical field but compared to all fields of science! It is Grade A quackery pure and simple.

When the FDA clears something as being safe, the court records, statements by the FDA’s own scientists and countless other pieces of evidence shows that there is an enormously high probability that not only is it not safe but highly likely to cause massive damage like death!

Again, this is not just me saying this; this is coming straight from thousands of FDA scientists. And they have made it clear that they will have their career destroyed if they speak out against it as the FDA “elites” will retaliate against them.

Before we go on to the article, I just want to show you an example of how the pharmaceutical companies are engaged in premeditated murder and they completely get away with it because of their corrupt ties to the Justice department and the FDA amongst other agencies in our Federal Government.

Bayer, the giant pharmaceutical company, the same company that manufactured the  Zyklon-B gas that killed people in gas chambers in Nazi Germany, has been guilty of this countless times.

Bayer manufactured a drug for hemophiliacs, mostly children, and it was found to be contaminated with the AIDS. They took it off the market in the United States and then the FDA APPROVED THIS AIDS TAINTED HEMOPHILIAC DRUG TO ACTUALLY BE SOLD OVERSEAS IN JAPAN, SPAIN & FRANCE. This is premeditated murder to approve a drug that is KNOWN to contain AIDS to be actually distributed elsewhere to be used by people needing the drug!

So, anyone that believes our government cares about safety and that the FDA works for people’s safety is mentally degenerated to a very profound degree and needs to take off their rose-colored glasses and vacuum off the pixie dust. These FDA believers are a danger to themselves and to those around them.

These same KNOWN safety issues with vaccines are no exception. As far as the Bayer murders, they basically agreed to settle out of court so the issue was dropped immediately. Today, not one person from Bayer or the FDA were ever prosecuted.

Before we move on to the very first sentence of the article, I just want to say that even if someone is simply committed to their belief that vaccines are safe and don’t want to be bothered with the facts, that is fine. If I at least opened one person’s eyes just a wee little bit so that the next time they watch the news, read a paper or look at some report, they may use a little more discretion in what they will believe and won’t automatically think they’re being told the truth because the source of information is a major news channel, magazine, newspaper or otherwise.

And, if someone reads or learns about something that completely contradicts what they have always believed, that they monitor themselves for their automatic programming to kick in, it would be a great reason to celebrate!

Most people aren’t in control of their own mind and just because thoughts are moving through one’s mind, that doesn’t meant they’re thinking. And unfortunately, most people don’t know the difference; especially those that are prone to believe and go along with and comply with what “authorities” have always led them to believe.

Now, let’s get on to the first sentence of the article: “Finally, after 13 years of needless controversy, the British Medical Journal determined that Andrew Wakefield’s vaccine-autism link constituted an ‘elaborate fraud.‘”

The first word, “Finally” does not scream to me a news article but rather a pretext to a promotion or a rant.

Needless controversy? Obviously, the author is telling us up front that in his opinion the entire controversy has always been a waste of time so this article cannot be taken as anything more than opinionated diatribe against Wakefield.

This is not to say there are not less biased articles about Wakefield amongst all the controversy that exists because there certainly are but they still have major flaws in the premise they use to support vaccines.

This one just happens to fail the test before I even read the first sentence and it failed a second time after seeing the first word and it failed again after reading one-third of the first sentence.

Having a PhD in microbiology and having an opinion article on CNN is meaningless and gives no creditability or substance to the fact that it is nothing more than an opinion piece, and a flawed one at that when looking at the facts – which we will explore bit by bit.

What does give value to an article whether it is for or against anything is the contents itself. A housewife with a tenth-grade education can write a more meaningful article on autism and vaccinations if she states facts that can be backed by credible references that substantiate her position. And if the facts speak for themselves, her lack of medical credentials are completely irrelevant. Again, facts can speak for themselves and I could care less who the author is.

Just because the British Medical Journal claims that Wakefield’s findings are an “elaborate fraud” doesn’t meant they were. They have never proven it, it remains their opinion, Wakefield has denied it and the parents that had children that were in the actual study are standing up for Wakefield stating the findings are exactly what Wakefield said they were because they were there as eyewitnesses.

The FACTS about the study Wakefield had published IS NOT EVEN BEING ADDRESSED by the British Medical Journal and their claims of fraud are patently false in every way, shape or form. The BMJ appears to have implicated itself in one of the worse cases of mainstream medical fraud by claiming fraud against Wakefield.

It’s a matter of historical record what his original study actually did say and everyone slamming Wakefield that are too ignorant and arrogant to research it will be be eating dirt.  The BMJ no longer has any creditability as a serious medical journal and has relegated itself to being nothing more than a quack tabloid by allowing a known fraud, Brian Deer, to promote such pure unadulterated garbage.

If one is unfamiliar with the facts and has never taken the time to extensively research the matter, and if one is believing oneself to be approaching something with an open scientific and unbiased mind, one would have to automatically concede that if the facts that surround the issue are not known then the British Medical Journal is just as likely to be committing fraud by accusing Wakefield as a fraud.

And, if one leads oneself to believe they are qualified to know what is the more likely case or not in this situation, that is an inherently corrupt viewpoint as it is already riddled with bias and speculation, which is an incredibly un-scientific way of looking at it. Only if the facts are known can one with any modicum of honesty to oneself and others be able to assert any belief one way or the other in what is likely to be the case or not.

Just because the accusers are a famous medical journal does not automatically entitle them to be dismissed from the reality and possibility that they are also a potential perpetrator of fraud. It would be pure and utter nonsense to believe such a thing and again, would be completely unscientific.

The author’s second paragraph reads: “Having already lost his medical license in the UK for unethical professional conduct, it is now time for him to be prosecuted.

There are countless problems with this statement but for brevity sake, I’ll keep this simple.

To the untrained eye, one may simply read this and automatically think that Wakefield is guilty of unprofessional conduct just because he lost his license. But the facts are that he lost his license and was accused of unprofessional conduct; there is a difference. There is no proof that he acted unprofessionally, which means there is no proof that his study was fraudulent.

There is however a mountain of evidence that the study is legitimate and any evidence for Wakefield is infinitely more substantial than zero evidence against, which is exactly what the British Medical Journal has. But the author is free to play judge, jury and prosecutor if he wishes and any reader is free to play the same.

Please realize that every year there are countless instances where people are acquitted for things they were accused of because to begin with there was no real proof they were guilty. And they were acquitted because they actually provided proof of their innocence.

Just remember that evidence is not proof and when a judgment is passed based on the discretion of the “judge”, this is not justice, it is tyranny.

Permit me to give you not just evidence but proof that people can be wrongly accused and then later acquitted by using an example that is vitally important to the vaccine issue itself.

When it comes to something that can threaten a multi-billion dollar industry such as vaccines, those with financial interests in such things oftentimes result to Nazi-like tactics to smear someone by any means necessary including accusing them of killing their own child in order to direct the attention away from the fact that a vaccine is the cause of the child’s death. It is called misdirection.

Alan Yurko was a father of a baby that had a swollen brain. He was sentenced to life in prison plus ten years for causing “shaken baby syndrome.” The medical “proof” used against him is an example of some of the finest medical quackery in American medical history. Thankfully, he was eventually released from prison when it was proven that the brain inflammation was actually caused by childhood vaccines. As a note, this brain inflammation is what can often lead to autism but his baby didn’t even survive long enough to develop that.

This documentary shows what Alan Yurko went through, an overview of vaccine history in general and a host of evidence that reveals how the medical examiners practiced nothing more than pure unadulterated quackery in their review in order to hide the facts that the brain inflammation was actually caused by the very vaccine they hold so dear. Vaccine Nation

Vaccine Nation is a highly acclaimed documentary and here are a few of the awards it was given in 2008 when it was released, which gives powerful credibility to the quality of the film, quality of the facts stated and quality of the research in general amongst other qualities:

Best Documentary

VN Awards
VN  Awards
VN  Awards
VN  Awards
VN  Awards

Official Selection

VN Awards
VN  Awards
VN  Awards
VN  Awards
VN  Awards

The above video link is a free full version online edition, but if you want to support Gary Null, PhD, the producer of the film, you can buy a copy here: Vaccine Nation

Again, if you believe in vaccine safety, go do the research that is included in the documentary. For example, look at the small pox numbers. Hygiene almost completely eliminated small pox. But as soon as the vaccine was made mandatory, the numbers of small pox cases skyrocketed above what they were before the vaccine was introduced!

Likewise, Polio was already declining because of increased hygiene education and then the polio vaccine was introduced. Here are a few other examples:

vaccinations chart
Polio, smallpox and diphtheria were in decline before the introduction of vaccinations. Mandatory smallpox vaccination in England and Wales resulted in a huge increase in the disease. Typhoid fever died out with no vaccination program.

What these vaccinations have in common as a matter of historical fact is that all the diseases were already tremendously declining and when the vaccines were introduced there was always an increase in cases. Another thing that these vaccines have in common is that the conventional medical field does whatever they can to manipulate the facts and take credit for “eradicating” these diseases when they were being eradicated by hygiene and people’s own immune systems!

If anyone thinks the above graphs are made up, they can go search out the facts. They shouldn’t take my word for it. If they believe vaccines are responsible for eradicating these diseases and if they think their skepticism is justified, they should go see for themselves; they’ll be sadly disappointed.

So the charts have been posted and you can see the real numbers of what vaccines did when they were introduced – they did nothing but increase the number of cases and you can see than when the medical establishment accuses someone of being guilty, it needs to be regarded as highly suspicious at minimum but research and due digligence is still needed to get to the truth.

That documentary is an example of proof of how low the medical establishment will stoop in order to paint someone as a child abuser in order to prevent the subject of vaccine danger to surface. Alan Yurko is a rare exception in actually getting justice in regards to exposing the medical industry as a fraud – especially in regards to vaccine safety in children.

If one assumes that someone is automatically guilty because they lost their license as in the case for Wakefield, this is the same thing as assuming an infallibility and unwavering honesty in the medical board that is able to revoke the medical license; it should be self apparent to the reader that assuming such a thing is not only ridiculous but foolish as it is to automatically believe that a revoked license means someone actually was automatically guilty.

Now, back to the article. The third paragraph of the article in question, the author gives himself an out to appear at least somewhat fair and unbiased, well not really, but this is how he states it: “Wakefield clearly crossed that line, according to the medical journal.

So the author believes that just because the journal makes an accusation, it is clear that Wakefield committed fraud. The only thing clear is that the author appears to have never even looked deeply into the matter any more than possibly reading a few articles himself that may have always supported what he already believed. I do have to give him credit though for stating that this is according to the journal. He has one point there but overall, his article is still in the red. But in another light, mixing his bias with “news style unbiased” words like “according to” is about as much nonsense as a left-handed smoke shifter.

The author states the journal revealed that Wakefield falsified his study. However, there was no proof ever provided that Wakefield did indeed commit fraud. The facts are that it remains a one-sided smear campaign with not a shred of proof. It is an accusation and anyone that believes Wakefield is guilty is in fact in their own mind and heart believing that someone should be able to be labeled as guilty first until proven innocent.

As a note, it is unquestionable that the BMJ is committing fraud by publishing accusations against Wakefield and what they claim his study was about is nothing but a perversion of rational behavior and is reprehensible. To any “skeptics”: Read Wakefield’s study then go about your business and stop causing trouble, seriously.

Anyway, the BMJ, the Nazi’s and those that burned “witches” have this mindset in common and this is certainly a modern day witch hunt as evidenced by the progression of the matter at hand.

The BMJ can only being to repair its reputation by completely denouncing Brian Deer as the real fraud – the fraud they were stupid enough to allow to publish an article in their journal, which is based on nothing but lies.

The article’s author goes on in the next few paragraphs: “Scientific fraud is a very serious matter. From a fiscal standpoint, it is essentially stealing money. Whether the funding comes from taxpayers, charities or private sources, there is an expectation that the recipients of such largesse act in good faith and honesty. Any knowledge produced from this funding then enters the public domain via scientific journals. Thus, when a scientist fabricates data, he is not only squandering limited financial resources but is also violating the public’s trust.

Even worse, when a scientist commits fraud, he misleads his fellow colleagues for years, if not decades. Thousands of hours and millions of dollars are often wasted disproving the research, and those precious assets could have been better spent elsewhere. In this case, the scientific community has been wasting its resources on Wakefield’s theory for 13 years.

First of all, I agree with the author that degenerates that defraud the scientific community area wasting everyone’s time, effort and money. But at the end, he says, “the scientific community has been wasting its resources…

Again, he comes off as stating that it is a fact although no proof has ever been provided that Wakefield is a fraud. He is simply using the British Medical Journal’s claims of fraud as something to support his already preconceived belief without any proof whatsoever.

Basically, he is using one unsubstantiated claim to support another unsubstantiated claim. It can’t get any more ridiculous and pathetic than that. This is like building a home with a paper floor on a foundation of quicksand; it is one flimsy foundation built upon another flimsy foundation.

His next paragraph takes the cake: “As bad as that is, wasted time and money pale in comparison to the devastating personal consequences that occurred across the globe as a direct result of Wakefield’s behavior. The marked decrease in vaccinations which occurred in the decade following his research literally cost people their lives. When parents refused to vaccinate their children, many of them contracted diseases such as measles and pertussis (whooping cough). Some of them died.

He states this claim yet doesn’t even provide any footnotes, let alone a single link to any kind of reference to back this claim. Of course many people will read this and automatically buy into this because this opinion editorial is on a CNN website and this guy has a PhD behind his name. References please?

If anyone believes in what this author is spewing, please provide a reference that proves with a scientific study showing that children that were not vaccinated had an increase mortality rate from contracting and dying from measles and pertussis!

Anyone that wants to provide a reference to support the author of that article should be prepared to provide a summary of where every penny came from to fund the study, a full biography of all doctors, scientists or anyone else involved including their relationships to any pharmaceutical related corporations, a full explanation of how the subjects of the study were selected amongst other pertinent information that is necessary to show that the study is even worth looking at.

I just want to point out just a few facts about the pertussis vaccine and want to start with a chart of whooping cough levels in the UK from 1900 to about 1980. Look at the decline and look when the vaccine was introduced:

Like most vaccines, this was introduced when it wasn’t even needed since whooping cough was already on the decline all by itself. You can guess who tries to take credit for eradicating it though! It’s completely laughable. This graph is from Her Majestey’s Stationary Office.

Here is a graph of whooping cough numbers in New Zealand with an indicator showing when the vaccine was introduced there as well:

Here are a few comments by those that are completely qualified to give a professional opinion on this subject:

“There is no doubt in my mind that in the UK alone some hundreds, if not thousands, of well infants have suffered irreparable brain damage needlessly, and that their lives and those of their parents have been wrecked in consequence.” – Gordon Stewart, Professor of Public Health at the University of Glasgow, 1980, commenting on the deadly effects of whooping cough vaccine.

The following is an extract from Professor Gordon Stewart’s major contribution from his paper presented two years earlier at the International Symposium on Pertussis, November 1978:


“Pertussis vaccine is not accidentally or occasionally toxic.  It is intrinsically toxic…”

Prof. Stewart goes on to talk about his findings from a scrutiny of hospital records and from reports from colleagues, parents and organisations caring for backward children.

  • “All the children in this series are severely brain damaged, with gross mental or physical handicap, or both.”
  • “In over 1,000 cases pediatricians or pediatric neurologists to whom these cases were referred, attributed the reaction to pertussis vaccine.”
    (G. P. Stewart, Pertussis Vaccine: The United Kingdom’s Experience, International Symposium on Pertussis, U.S. Dept H.E.W., November 1-3 1978.)

This fact attests to the ridiculousness of the idea that a pertussis vaccine prevents pertussis:

“Thirty percent of the people who catch whooping cough have already been vaccinated against it.” – (New Scientist, Vol. 95, No. 1323, 1982, page 749.)

A few more facts:

“Vaccination levels fell to 32% in 1978 due to the vaccine combine being no longer able to hide the cases of vaccine-induced brain damage.  A patient campaign has pushed this up to over 65%; consequently we now face the biggest epidemic since 1957.” – (NAVS, Campaigner, March 1988.)

“The DHSS has consistently lied about the risks and problems associated with the vaccine… the truth… is that it has always been a disaster.” – (Dr Vernon Coleman, F.R.S.M., The Health Scandal, 1988.)

Dr. Michael Odent has found in a study that children that were given the DPT (Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus) were 6 times (600%) more likely to develop asthma. The references for his studies are on the National Library of Medicine’s Pubmed website. However, they will not publish the abstracts – why is that? Effect of immunisation status on asthma prevalence and Pertussis vaccination and asthma: is there a link?

It is common for doctors to see whooping cough in children that have been fully immunized. So, why so much risk for virtually no benefit? Even S.I.D.S. (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) was practically unknown until the DPT vaccine. The Japanese realized the connection and immediately postponed vaccines until children were two years old and S.I.D.S. almost completely disappeared.

Please note that the “Revolving Door” policy is practically illegal in Japan so the researchers don’t have a job waiting for them at a pharmaceutical company. And likewise, any high up corporate executive with a pharmaceutical company cannot get hired into the government approval process for medical procedures.

Here are a few facts about S.I.D.S. and the connection to DPT or Pertussis vaccines:

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association* found that children diagnosed with asthma (a respiratory ailment not unlike SIDS) were five times more likely than not to have received pertussis vaccine.(1) Another study found that babies die at a rate eight times greater than normal within three days after getting a DPT shot.(2) The three primary doses of DPT are given at two months, four months, and six months. About 85 percent of SIDS cases occur at one through six months, with the peak incidence at age two to four months.

In a recent scientific study of SIDS, episodes of apnea (cessation of breathing) and hypopnea (abnormally shallow breathing) were measured before and after DPT vaccinations. “Cotwatch” (a precise breathing monitor) was used, and the computer printouts it generated (in integrals of the weighted apnea-hypopnea density — WAHD) were analyzed. The data clearly shows that vaccination caused an extraordinary increase in episodes where breathing either nearly ceased or stopped completely. These episodes continued for months following vaccinations. Dr. Viera Scheibner, the author of the study, concluded that “vaccination is the single most prevalent and most preventable cause of infant deaths.”(3) (See the diagram below.)


[DPT & SIDS Study #1]

In another study of 103 children who died of SIDS, Dr. William Torch, of the University of Nevada School of Medicine at Reno, found that more than two-thirds had been vaccinated with DPT prior to death. Of these, 6.5 percent died within 12 hours of vaccination; 13 percent within 24 hours; 26 percent within three days; and 37, 61, and 70 percent within one, two, and three weeks, respectively (see the diagram below). He also found that SIDS frequencies have a bimodal-peak occurrence at two and four months — the same ages when initial doses of DPT are administered to infants.(4)


[DPT & SIDS  Study #2]

*The book Vaccines: Are They Really Safe & Effective gives all citations in JAMA, etc…

So, above are a few references to the dangers of the pertussis vaccine by medical professionals with published studies in the leading American medical journal JAMA.

Some dangers include but are not limited to asthma, brain damage, S.I.D.S./death. There are about 8000 cases of S.I.D.S. in the United States every year.

Notice that the author of the anti-Wakefield article states some of them (unvaccinated children) died. What are the numbers of deaths in unvaccinated children by a credible source please?

Please understand that children that receive a measles or pertussis vaccine are not prevented from contracting measles or pertussis (whooping cough). The vaccine idea is that it is supposed to prevent that but is not 100% effective in doing so even according to conventional medicine.

They claim it does have an effectiveness but if it is not 100% effective, and that according to some studies, 30% of children that get the vaccines still have a chance of contracting the diseases that the vaccine were supposed to prevent. And out of all these vaccinated children, more than “some” die every year.

The author of that article states that children that didn’t get vaccinated died from those diseases, yet vaccinated children die from those same diseases every year and many of those deaths are linked to the vaccine itself! I’m not sure if I should laugh or cry. And in addition to that, he provides no references of any study that back this claim about unvaccinated children. Can anyone say propaganda?

The author then draws on his painfully shallow diatribe to include: “The reluctance of millions of people to accept the annual influenza vaccination also likely stems, at least in part, from the fallacious vaccine-autism link.

If hypocrisy were a virtue, the medical world would be full of saints.

I want to briefly mention “Omission Bias” so you can see what tactics the mainstream medical community use to try to paint vaccine disbelievers as idiots. You can see the definition on this page:

Here is an example of a study reviewing omission bias in patients that may choose to not vaccinate their children:

The omission bias is manifested when a more harmful act of omission is preferred to a less harmful act of commission.

We can see that the brainwashing is very self-evident and one-sided in that definition. Considering commission or vaccinating a “less harmful act” compared to not vaccinating (omission) is still based upon the unproven claim that vaccines are safe when not just overwhelming evidence but overwhelming proof shows they are not. And because they have been proven to not only be useless, but dangerous, the very concept of omission bias in the context of vaccines and patient’s decisions is ludicrous.

Omission bias based on the above definition is only accurate IF and ONLY IF the treatment to be accepted or denied is PROVEN to be safer.

The omission bias study and others like it state that parents say they “did their research” in a way that implies that their research if faulty. They go on to state how their sources for research including shady organization that don’t post real science.

You can see what I have posted agrees with the parents and that my sources include JAMA and many peer-reviewed articles that have abstracts that are available in Pubmed. Also, they include the statements and testimony by many medical professionals that have MD behind their name and none of my references include witchdoctors and fortune tellers.

If someone had their finger cut off in the middle of the forest and refused to put on a tourniquet because the person read somewhere that even in emergencies tourniquets shouldn’t be used in some circumstances, that (omission) would be a blatantly obvious less safe that commission (to put on a tourniquet) – as a matter of common sense.

So, there are obviously common sense things that are absolutely safer to do than by not doing. But all the studies that discuss omission bias in regards to vaccines are all based on the fallacy that vaccines are the safer choice.

Let’s talk a bit about the flu vaccine as this issue is worthy of an entire encyclopedia documenting the utter stupidity of how virtually every study is done to “prove” effectiveness.

To touch on just a few points, would you believe as pathetic as it is that the FDA has cleared some vaccines simply because the vaccine proved to produce an antibody for the flu strain in the vaccine? I’ll elaborate just a bit.

Producing an antibody to a vaccine strain has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it has been proven to actually prevent someone from contracting the flu! And on top of this, there is no guarantee that what is in the vaccine is going to be the same strain of flu that is going to be going around in your area, which renders the vaccine less than worthless.

And a point I want to really get across is that if someone doesn’t get the vaccine and are exposed to the flu, their body will produce the antibody to the flu anyway! Effectiveness in preventing the flu is another issue altogether but if some vaccines have actually been passed because of simply producing an antibody, what in the world is the point as our bodies will already do that without the vaccine?

To top it off, if we allow our immune systems to do what they are perfectly capable of doing, the antibody that our body produces when we come in contact with some flu virus will be the exact antibody for the flu we actually catch! That means that we are much more likely to combat the flu without a vaccine than with with a vaccine that has a completely different flu strain. And, without the negative side effects associated with vaccines such as how the immune system actually gets depressed from all the toxins contained in them from egg protein that many people are allergic to, mercury and other trouble-making ingredients.

Now here is the kicker for many vaccine studies – and I hope the implications of this are very well comprehended – they do not use placebo vaccines in most of the studies! They only compare one vaccine to another but they do not do a comparison where one group receives a placebo to show the actual effectiveness of vaccine versus no vaccine!

If that isn’t one of the most ridiculous slaps in the face of science there is, I don’t know what is. And any “skeptic” that doesn’t appreciate the incredibly profound significance of the fraud involved here has no business having an opinion, let alone any skepticism towards those that don’t believe very much in vaccine safety or effectiveness. Not using a placebo and only comparing one vaccine to another?

The British Medical Journal stated that Wakefield committed an “elaborate fraud” but in reality, the only ones committing an elaborate fraud are the pharmaceutical companies and how they conduct their bogus “studies” to prove vaccine effectiveness and safety!

If anyone wants to search out a study references that exposes much of the fraud and bias in flu vaccination studies, please see some of the references here: The Truth About The Flu Shot

For convenience, I’ll provide some of it here:

Not in babies: In a review of more than 51 studies involving more than 294,000 children it was found there was “no evidence that injecting children 6-24 months of age with a flu shot was any more effective than placebo. In children over 2 yrs, it was only effective 33% of the time in preventing the flu.

Reference: “Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children.” The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2 (2008).


Not in children with asthma: A study 800 children with asthma, where one half were vaccinated and the other half did not receive the influenza vaccine. The two groups were compared with respect to clinic visits, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations for asthma. CONCLUSION: This study failed to provide evidence that the influenza vaccine prevents pediatric asthma exacerbations.

Reference: “Effectiveness of influenza vaccine for the prevention of asthma exacerbations.” Christly, C. et al. Arch Dis Child. 2004 Aug;89(8):734-5.


Not in children with asthma (2): The inactivated flu vaccine, Flumist, does not prevent influenza-related hospitalizations in children, especially the ones with asthma…In fact, children who get the flu vaccine are more at risk for hospitalization than children who do not get the vaccine.

Reference: The American Thoracic Society’s 105th International Conference, May 15-20, 2009, San Diego.


Not in adults: In a review of 48 reports including more than 66,000 adults, “Vaccination of healthy adults only reduced risk of influenza by 6% and reduced the number of missed work days by less than one day (0.16) days. It did not change the number of people needing to go to hospital or take time off work.

Reference: “Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.” The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1 (2006).


Not in the Elderly: In a review of 64 studies in 98 flu seasons, For elderly living in nursing homes, flu shots were non-significant for preventing the flu. For elderly living in the community, vaccines were not (significantly) effective against influenza, ILI or pneumonia.

Reference: “Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly.” The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.3 (2006).


What about the new Swine Flu shot?

Some of the new H1N1 (swine flu) vaccines are going to be made by Novartis. These shots will probably be made in PER.C6 cells (human retina cells) and contain MF59, a potentially debilitating adjuvant.  MF-59 is an oil-based adjuvant primarily composed of squalene.

  • All rats injected with squalene (oil) adjuvants developed a disease that left them crippled, dragging their paralyzed hindquarters across their cages. Injected squalene can cause severe arthritis (3 on scale of 4) and severe immune responses, such as autoimmune arthritis and lupus.
  • Ref: (1): Kenney, RT. Edleman, R. “Survey of human-use adjuvants.” Expert Review of Vaccines. 2 (2003) p171.
  • Ref: (2): Matsumoto, Gary. Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That’s Killing Our Soldiers and Why GI’s Are Only the First Victims of this Vaccine. New York: Basic Books. p54.

The above scientific studies and facts are a few of countless examples of how flu vaccines are completely worthless and are a waste of time and money to use. The only benefit in flu vaccines are the billions of dollars in profits going into the pharmaceutical company’s pockets.

In the rare instances that vaccines show some kind of effectiveness, the statistics are so insignificant that statistically speaking, there is no scientific justification for even using them!

I want to leave you with one more study on flu vaccines, which shows that Vitamin D was 800% more effective in preventing flu in children that the flu vaccine!

A clinical trial led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima and conducted by the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective at halting influenza infections in children. The trial appears in the March, 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Am J Clin Nutr (March 10, 2010). doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.29094)

The results are from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 334 children, half of which were given 1200 IUs per day of vitamin D3. In other words, this was a “rigorous” scientific study meeting the gold standard of scientific evidence.

In the study, while 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted influenza over the four month duration of the study, only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This means vitamin D was responsible for an absolute reduction of nearly 8 percent.

Flu vaccines, according to the latest scientific evidence, achieve a 1 percent reduction in influenza symptoms (…).

That means Vitamin D is 8 times or 800% effective in preventing influenza infections in children.

Read the whole article on this here: Vitamin D better than Flu Vaccine

That is one of the most damaging studies ever done against the vaccine industry:

This is real science and I hope you scroll to the very bottom of that page where the warning and plain English summary is.  Here it is:

Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults
Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses. Each year, the World Health Organization recommends which viral strains should be included in vaccinations for the forthcoming season.

Authors of this review assessed all trials that compared vaccinated people with unvaccinated people. The combined results of these trials showed that under ideal conditions (vaccine completely matching circulating viral configuration) 33 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost but caused one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations. Fifteen of the 36 trials were funded by vaccine companies and four had no funding declaration. Our results may be an optimistic estimate because company-sponsored influenza vaccines trials tend to produce results favorable to their products and some of the evidence comes from trials carried out in ideal viral circulation and matching conditions and because the harms evidence base is limited.

One-hundred people would have to get the flu vaccine in order to prevent one person from getting the flu! There are many words and phrases in the English language to describe the intelligence of someone that believes it is in their best interest to get the flu vaccine to prevent the flu when it only has a 1% chance of working but I’ll leave that to their imagination.

Remember, this is scientifically proven medical science showing how well the flu vaccine works. Some people with alphabet soup behind their name like to make claims but don’t have the courage or integrity to substantiate their pure unadulterated tripe. Go figure.

And don’t forget the other referenced scientifically proven fact – the flu vaccine made no difference in the amount of work days or days people spent at the hospital. Again, “no difference” means 0% change in the days people miss from work or are at the hospital. Now, what does this speak about the intelligence of the person that believes the flu vaccine will keep them from getting the flu with an associated belief they will have less sick days?

I do have to say that most people that have believed it cannot be blamed. We should be able to trust doctors and others placed in a position of expertise and we can’t always fault people for looking up to them. However, it is the day and age of information and we have no excuse to not have access to the whole story and not just the one they’re ramming down our throats.

But when it comes down to it, the average person is simply duped, brainwashed and taken advantage of by medical doctors and there is no other way around it. Most medical doctors don’t have the mental capacity to be able to honestly analyze what the facts even are because they are so deeply indoctrinated into their religious fanaticism.

So seeing there is no justifiable benefit to take the flu shot and there is a chance to get Guillian-Barré syndrome, that means by getting a flu vaccine, you receive no benefit but are playing the lottery for a chance to possibly get paralysis or some other undesirable effect! No benefit but a chance to get screwed for life. How can anyone go for this mumbo jumbo quackery?

I must mention the logical facts about side effects. There is NO SUCH THING AS SIDE EFFECTS! They don’t exist. Every single effect a drug causes is a DIRECT effect of the drug. Calling it a side effect is marketing language and psychological manipulation that downplays undesired effects. Any effect from a drug that is not intended, is brushed aside as a side effect to downplay it. So please remember that EVERY effect from a drug whether it is intended or not is a 100% DIRECT EFFECT of that drug.

And when looking at any drug inserts of even the drug commercials, count how many of these “side effects” are listed! They ENORMOUSLY outnumber the one small possible intended effect the drug is approved for. Most of the DIRECT effects from them are negative and harmful and the beneficial effect is a minority of them all.

The drugs should state: “The DIRECT effects of this drug have been shown to cause heart attacks, stroke, internal bleeding, bleeding from the eyes, insomnia, loss of impotence, mental fatigue, gout, ear aches, sore or bleeding gums, constipation, loss of memory, seizures, suicidal tendencies, and death. However, it has been found that there is one small and short lived positive beneficial effect that you may experience when taking it and that it could elevate your mood for short periods throughout the day.”

And people trust the medical industry?

Now, if you think doctors like to think for themselves, think again. In one research study, 82% of medical students voluntarily sodomized patients that were anesthetized and did so without the knowledge or consent of the patient. They simply went along with what the instructors told them to do while demonstrating the lack of any kind of ethical awareness at all about what they’re doing.

Stripping a 17 year old girl that was passed out and digitally probing her was the activity conducted by an entire line of willing medical students. This also has been done to people that were still doped up and had their pants yanked down and the instructors told the students to give them anal exams.

Again, the patients were passed out and never gave consent to this rape and they laid there getting probed and were helpless to do anything about it – let alone the fact they didn’t’ even know it was going on. The number of students that refused to do this without consent were so small you could count them on one hand! If that doesn’t scare the daylights out of you, I don’t know what will.

This is just an example of how medical students are simply indoctrinated into going along with whatever garbage is shoved down their throats and they come out as high priests of the medicate, radiate and slash ‘em up cult. Learn more about this alarming practice here: Without Consent

Ok, so back to the article – but I thought you should have a few facts about flu vaccines and the mentality of doctors as they are indoctrinated since the author appears oh-so disappointed that millions of people are reluctant to get a flu vaccine; poor guy.

So, if we’re to explore the vaccine/autism link, let’s look into the research.

Starting with the parents of the children that actually participated in Wakefield’s studies I believe is as good a place to start as any, since they were actual eye witnesses. I believe going to the source, origin, or beginning of the issue is usually a good idea. There just so happens to be a video that lets you hear from these parents and here it is: Selective Hearing

In the video you will see someone, Brian Deer the liar, that has been instrumental in organizing a concerted effort against Wakefield and he is caught telling several lies throughout this short film.

Anyone wanting to know about Dr. Andrew Wakefield should at least spend due time to see what he has to say so that BOTH perspectives are known and not just what the smear campaign from media propaganda are saying:

Interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield about the British Medical Journal, science and vaccines

Interview with Dr Andrew Wakefield – the structure of scientific revolutions

And you can get Dr. Wakefield’s book Callous Disregard if you want to see more of his point of view instead of one-sided unscientific propaganda:

Callous Disregard

To learn the FACTS about this despicable claim by the British Medical Journal, you can download plenty of documents on this website:

Here they are for your convenience:

NO FRAUD, NO HOAX. Here’s Proof.

The Anatomy of Fraud

Studies That Support Wakefield

BMJ Must Retract

Wakefield Response to BMJ

Feb, 2008 – Lancet, “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children”

Feb, 2010 – Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, “Hepatitis B Vaccination of Male Neonates and Autism Diagnosis, NHIS 1997–2002”

Sept–Oct, 2008 – Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, “Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1–9 years”

June, 2010 – Acta Neurobioliae, “Sorting out the spinning of autism: heavy metals and the question of incidence”

2010 – United States Center for Disease Control, “Recommended Immunization Schedule”

April, 2010 – Autism File magazine, “Ethics, Evidence and the Death of Medicine”

Jan, 2010 – Autism File magazine, “That Paper”

Mar, 2010 – Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, “Delayed Acquisition of Neonatal Reflexes in Newborn Primates Receiving a Thimerosal-Containing Hepatitis B Vaccine: Influence of Gestational Age and Birth Weight”

June, 2010 – Acta Neurobioliae, “Influence of pediatric vaccines on amygdala growth and opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants: A pilot study”

2009 – Medical  Veritas, “Response  to  Dr.  Ari  Brown   and  the  Immunization  Action  Coalition ”

2004 – Elsevier, “Editorial: The First International Symposium on Vaccine Safety”

April, 2003 – Elsevier, “Unintended events following immunization with MMR: a systematic review”

April, 2008 – Elsevier, “Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: An assessment of computerized medical records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink”

Jan, 2009 – The Autism File, “On Second Looking Into the Case of Dr. Andrew J. Wakefield”

June, 2005 – Paper by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., “Tobacco Science and the Thimerosal Scandal,”

June, 2005 – Stone, “Deadly Immunity”

There is more to be said specifically about Autism and Vaccines and I’ll get to this in the next post as this one was long enough.

Please join my blog and post your comments!


Posted in Vaccines | Leave a comment