Cynthia A. Janak
Australia: Let's give babies Gardasil vaccine shots
By Cynthia A. Janak
One of my dream vacations is to spend a month in Australia and travel the country. As of today I am going to have my doubts whether I will. At least, I will not go to the area that this doctor is from if I ever do. I think there might be something in the water in her area. Let me explain why I feel this way.
I am going to quote this short article from "The Sydney Morning Herald," dated August 27th, 2007.
Cervical vaccine trial on babies: report
August 27, 2007–8:09AM
A doctor who played a key role in trials of a cervical cancer vaccine is proposing testing it on babies.
Suzanne Garland, the director of microbiology and infectious diseases at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne, is flying to the US to meet with drug companies and will discuss trialling the vaccine on babies up to a few months old, Fairfax newspapers report.
Professor Garland said there were benefits to immunising babies instead of schoolgirls, but one of the questions that would need to be answered was how long the vaccine would last, and whether a booster shot would be necessary years later.
The vaccine has been tested in children only over the age of 10.
© 2007 AAP
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Cervical-vaccine-trial-on-babies-report/2007/08/27/1188066978713.html
What I am going to do here today is give you some stats as to what is going on with babies (0–2) and vaccinations. I am going to show you how health through better chemistry is harming some babies.
I am going to start with going to one of my favorite sites that deal with vaccines, medalerts. http://www.medalerts.org
First, I wanted to see how many reports were generated that a medical professional felt compelled to send a report to VAERS. It seems like the reports go back to 1989. I did find a few that went back to 1983 but not many.
From 1989 until present there have been 66820 cases reported of adverse reactions to vaccines in 0–2 year olds. That makes an average of 3712 children and infants a year.
1960 children died. 1679 infants died before they were 7 months old. 112 died before their first birthday and 169 died before their second birthday.
8177 children from 0–2 needed to be hospitalized.
5821 children from 0–2 had not recovered at the time of the report.
1424 children from 0–2 are disabled at the time of the report.
1559 children from 0–2 the person who reported the event felt that it was life threatening.
23961 children from 3–5 had adverse reactions to vaccines.
46 children from 3–5 died, some because the vaccine was ineffective.
877 children from 3–5 needed to be hospitalized.
1186 children from 3–5 had not recovered at the time of the report.
192 children from 3–5 are disabled at the time of the report.
255 children from 3–5 the person who reported the event felt that it was life threatening.
What this tells me is that in the 18 years that VAERS has been operational there have been a total of 93163 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines in the 0–5 age group.
With all that said I wanted to know how many cases were reported were autism was mentioned in the report. This is what I found.
783 children from 0–5 autism is mentioned as a symptom.
This peaked my curiosity as to some of the other symptoms that were reported. What I did was entered the symptom like 'seizure' in the symptoms box and did a search. Some of the reports will be duplicated in the numbers because many of the children had multiple symptoms. Here are my findings.
33727 children from 0–5 had a fever.
119 children from 0–5 suffered convulsions.
4620 children from 0–5 had seizures.
627 children from 0–5 retard or retardation is mentioned as a symptom.
45 children from 0–5 brain damage is mentioned as a symptom.
409 children from 0–5 developmental delay is mentioned as a symptom.
Just a little note here. With one of my children I experienced the high fever and deafness in my infant child. Fortunately, the hearing started to improve after 3 months of heart wrenching worry and self doubt because I felt that I caused this injury to my child. So I know what every parent has gone through in these reports. No one should have to go through that type of emotional roller coaster.
As many of you know that read my articles regularly, I have been writing a series of articles about Gardasil and the serious side effects.
I want to know what this doctor is thinking. Why would someone want to give another vaccine to an infant that is proving to have such a debilitating effect on 12–19 year olds?
In a previous article I mentioned the neurotoxin aluminum.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/janak/070206
The ingredients of Gardasil.
Each 0.5-mL dose of the vaccine contains approximately 225 mcg of aluminum (as amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant), 9.56 mg of sodium chloride, 0.78 mg of L-histidine, 50 mcg of polysorbate 80, 35 mcg of sodium borate, and water for injection. The product does not contain a preservative or antibiotics.
This doctor wants to inject our infants with this toxin that could have a very real adverse effect to their developing brains. My opinion is that if this trial is going to commence what is the possibility of more infants being diagnosed brain damaged or autistic? Don't we have enough of this today as a result of vaccines? My opinion is I think so.
The interesting thing about this article is that it only mentions concerns to how long the vaccine would last and if a booster shot will be necessary later. What it does not ask is if there will be any serious side-effects to the infant that could mirror what is happening presently or be more intense for the infant. My question to this doctor is why give it to an infant? What is your reasoning behind this action? I would really like to know.
I wonder if the reasoning behind this new trial is that these children will have to have a booster every 4–5 years and that will bring up the profit margin for Merck. Another up side for this would be that babies only cry. They can not tell you what is wrong and voice an opinion.
This part of my article goes to the people of Australia. Please do not let this trial commence. You are already seeing the effects that Gardasil has on your youth. Do not subject an infant to the same pain and suffering that is being experienced by some of the young girls getting the shot today. My opinion is that this would be sadistic.
My prayers go out to all the families that are presently dealing with the side effects of this vaccine. May your God bless you.
© Cynthia A. Janak
One of my dream vacations is to spend a month in Australia and travel the country. As of today I am going to have my doubts whether I will. At least, I will not go to the area that this doctor is from if I ever do. I think there might be something in the water in her area. Let me explain why I feel this way.
I am going to quote this short article from "The Sydney Morning Herald," dated August 27th, 2007.
Cervical vaccine trial on babies: report
August 27, 2007–8:09AM
A doctor who played a key role in trials of a cervical cancer vaccine is proposing testing it on babies.
Suzanne Garland, the director of microbiology and infectious diseases at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne, is flying to the US to meet with drug companies and will discuss trialling the vaccine on babies up to a few months old, Fairfax newspapers report.
Professor Garland said there were benefits to immunising babies instead of schoolgirls, but one of the questions that would need to be answered was how long the vaccine would last, and whether a booster shot would be necessary years later.
The vaccine has been tested in children only over the age of 10.
© 2007 AAP
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Cervical-vaccine-trial-on-babies-report/2007/08/27/1188066978713.html
What I am going to do here today is give you some stats as to what is going on with babies (0–2) and vaccinations. I am going to show you how health through better chemistry is harming some babies.
I am going to start with going to one of my favorite sites that deal with vaccines, medalerts. http://www.medalerts.org
First, I wanted to see how many reports were generated that a medical professional felt compelled to send a report to VAERS. It seems like the reports go back to 1989. I did find a few that went back to 1983 but not many.
From 1989 until present there have been 66820 cases reported of adverse reactions to vaccines in 0–2 year olds. That makes an average of 3712 children and infants a year.
1960 children died. 1679 infants died before they were 7 months old. 112 died before their first birthday and 169 died before their second birthday.
8177 children from 0–2 needed to be hospitalized.
5821 children from 0–2 had not recovered at the time of the report.
1424 children from 0–2 are disabled at the time of the report.
1559 children from 0–2 the person who reported the event felt that it was life threatening.
23961 children from 3–5 had adverse reactions to vaccines.
46 children from 3–5 died, some because the vaccine was ineffective.
877 children from 3–5 needed to be hospitalized.
1186 children from 3–5 had not recovered at the time of the report.
192 children from 3–5 are disabled at the time of the report.
255 children from 3–5 the person who reported the event felt that it was life threatening.
What this tells me is that in the 18 years that VAERS has been operational there have been a total of 93163 reports of adverse reactions to vaccines in the 0–5 age group.
With all that said I wanted to know how many cases were reported were autism was mentioned in the report. This is what I found.
783 children from 0–5 autism is mentioned as a symptom.
This peaked my curiosity as to some of the other symptoms that were reported. What I did was entered the symptom like 'seizure' in the symptoms box and did a search. Some of the reports will be duplicated in the numbers because many of the children had multiple symptoms. Here are my findings.
33727 children from 0–5 had a fever.
119 children from 0–5 suffered convulsions.
4620 children from 0–5 had seizures.
627 children from 0–5 retard or retardation is mentioned as a symptom.
45 children from 0–5 brain damage is mentioned as a symptom.
409 children from 0–5 developmental delay is mentioned as a symptom.
Just a little note here. With one of my children I experienced the high fever and deafness in my infant child. Fortunately, the hearing started to improve after 3 months of heart wrenching worry and self doubt because I felt that I caused this injury to my child. So I know what every parent has gone through in these reports. No one should have to go through that type of emotional roller coaster.
As many of you know that read my articles regularly, I have been writing a series of articles about Gardasil and the serious side effects.
I want to know what this doctor is thinking. Why would someone want to give another vaccine to an infant that is proving to have such a debilitating effect on 12–19 year olds?
In a previous article I mentioned the neurotoxin aluminum.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/janak/070206
The ingredients of Gardasil.
Each 0.5-mL dose of the vaccine contains approximately 225 mcg of aluminum (as amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant), 9.56 mg of sodium chloride, 0.78 mg of L-histidine, 50 mcg of polysorbate 80, 35 mcg of sodium borate, and water for injection. The product does not contain a preservative or antibiotics.
This doctor wants to inject our infants with this toxin that could have a very real adverse effect to their developing brains. My opinion is that if this trial is going to commence what is the possibility of more infants being diagnosed brain damaged or autistic? Don't we have enough of this today as a result of vaccines? My opinion is I think so.
The interesting thing about this article is that it only mentions concerns to how long the vaccine would last and if a booster shot will be necessary later. What it does not ask is if there will be any serious side-effects to the infant that could mirror what is happening presently or be more intense for the infant. My question to this doctor is why give it to an infant? What is your reasoning behind this action? I would really like to know.
I wonder if the reasoning behind this new trial is that these children will have to have a booster every 4–5 years and that will bring up the profit margin for Merck. Another up side for this would be that babies only cry. They can not tell you what is wrong and voice an opinion.
This part of my article goes to the people of Australia. Please do not let this trial commence. You are already seeing the effects that Gardasil has on your youth. Do not subject an infant to the same pain and suffering that is being experienced by some of the young girls getting the shot today. My opinion is that this would be sadistic.
My prayers go out to all the families that are presently dealing with the side effects of this vaccine. May your God bless you.
© Cynthia A. Janak
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
