World Community Autism Program

Vaccine deceit
Source: Falsified death certificates and medical records

Vaccine information has been clouded by deceit, misinformation and lack of information since the origin of the modern vaccine. The smallpox vaccine is now being revisited on the US based on a threat of terrorism. In response to a perceived threat of biological warfare the US government may be the ones inflicting the harm on it’s medical professionals, military personnel and anyone else they determine to be ‘at risk’.

Falsified death certificates and medical records

“To whom it may concern: This is to certify that the undersigned was at one time a patient at the Sand Creek Hospital for smallpox under the regime of Dr. Sharpley. That while there I was present at the questioning of a group of smallpox patients who had just arrived and that I saw the answers made by said patients, written down, by the Superintendent in charge, upon the blanks provided for this purpose. That two of the five patients answered ‘yes’ to the question whether they had been successfully vaccinated within the preceding three years. That I saw the Superintendent write down the word ‘no’ instead of ‘yes’ that the patient answered to this question. That afterwards, immediately I called the attention of the Superintendent to this mistake. That the Superintendent told me that he had done this deliberately and that he had orders to write ‘no’ in this space regardless of what answer the patient made to the question and that such orders came from the office of the City Physician.”
Signed — Ernest B. Safford, Denver, Colorado, January 4, 1923

Notarized statement
“I the undersigned, Alice G. Vincent, being duly sworn on oath to make this statement:
In December, 1921, I went to the office of Dr. Sharpley and asked to see the records of the smallpox deaths (which should be open to the public) and he refused to allow me to see them. I went to the Mayor’s office, and the Mayor’s secretary asked if Dr. Sharpley had refused me and I said he had. Then she said I could not see them, that Dr. Sharpley was supreme. I went to the City Attorney’s office and asked him by what authority Dr. Sharpley refused to show me the records. I was told that they did not know, but if he had refused I would have to bring suit in order to see them, and if I did it would be the business of the City Attorney to defend Dr. Sharpley.”
Signed — Alice G. Vincent, Denver, Colorado March 14, 1923
“Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 14th day of March, A.D. 1923”
Signed — Jean Raber Notary Public

Not only are doctors given verbal instructions to disregard the truth, but the written instructions in medical journals and texts also make it clear that lies are preferred and expected in order to protect the fianancial ‘racket’ of vaccination. For instance, an article entitled ‘Smallpox — Its Differential Diagnosis,’ by Archibald L. Hoyne, M.D., which was read before the Chicago Medical Society and published in the Illinois Medical Journal, June 1923, states: ‘In examining a case of suspected smallpox, close observation is of the utmost importance. If the patient shows evidence of a typical vaccination scar of comparatively recent date, váriola (smallpox) may be almost absolutely ruled out.’

From the Journal of the Michigan State Medical Society (March, 1927) we read: “The following points are important aids in the diagnosis of smallpox ‘The absence of any history of having had smallpox or a successful vaccination within the past five years.”

Even in ‘Modern Medicine’ by the famous Dr. William Osler (Vol. 1, p.853) instructions are given to the physicians to report cases of smallpox as chickenpox if there is a vaccination mark. The first differential point in the diagnosis of chickenpox and smallpox is pointed out as ‘the vaccinal condition of the patient.’ It does not matter how serious and certain the smallpox may be, the vaccinated cases are diagnosed as chickenpox, syphilis or something else, and when the records are compiled, the Health Departments announce to the people that there is no smallpox among the persons successfully vaccinated.

Can medical statistics be relied on?

W.R. Hadwin, M.D., one of the most prominent vaccination authorities in England, was asked the following question in a public lecture: “Can you give the death-rate of smallpox under ten years of age, in the recent London outbreak of smallpox, differentiating between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated?”

Vaccinated cases 45; Deaths 0
Unvaccinated cases 62; Deaths 29
Unvaccinated fatality 47%

When the names and addresses of these patients were obtained from the Town Council and a careful, independent investigation was made, this is how the facts turned out:

Vaccinated cases 61; Deaths 16
Unvaccinated cases 46; Deaths 13
Fatality 28%

“In the epidemic of 1870-72 the Metropolitan Asylum Board records 195 cases of smallpox in vaccinated children under five years of age, with 38 deaths; a fatality of 19.5% and 786 cases from five to ten years with 60 deaths, a fatality of 6.6%. This shows that the nearer they were to the date of the vaccination, the worse they suffered. In the same pandemic in Berlin, 2,240 successfully vaccinated children under ten developed smallpox, of whom 736 died; that is a fatality of nearly 33%.” (from THE VACCINATION DELUSION by Dr. W.R. Hadwin, p. 30.)

Professor Alfred Russel Wallace commented on this situation in his WONDERFUL CENTURY  as follows: “The facts and figures of the medical profession and of government officials, in regard to the question of vaccination, must never be accepted without verification. And when we consider that these misstatements and concealments and denials of injury, have been going on throughout the whole of the century, that penal legislation has been founded on them, that homes have been broken up, that thousands have been barred by police and have been imprisoned and treated as felons, and that at the rate now officially admitted, a thousand children have been certainly killed by vaccination during the past 20 years, and an unknown but probably much larger number injured for life, we are driven to the conclusion that those responsible for these reckless misstatements and their terrible results have, thoughtlessly and ignorantly, but nonetheless certainly, been guilty of a crime — a terrible crime — against liberty, against health, and against humanity, which before many years have passed, must be universally held to be of the foulest blots on the civilization of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.”

Falsifying death certificates—a prison offense
Pickering, in his ‘Sanitation and Vaccination’ sums up the situation tersely when he says:
“When I know that the deaths from atrophy and debility, diarrhea, and convulsions, a total of 54,344 deaths annually, are wrongly certified; that they are symptomatic, not causative, I am justified in saying that the whole system of registration and certification requires to be remodelled and reformed. Medicine will never reform itself. Certification should be in the hands of an independent authority.” This statement is not only true but critically urgent, providing that independent authority is accurate, honest and dependable. Mr. Baxter, an editor of an independent newspaper is to be commended for these fearless words: “I am reminded of the statement, ‘no evil is ever corrected by those who profit from it.’ As long as the powerful monopolistic Rockefeller-dominated drug trust, through its political influence and mutual understanding with the union that controls medical practice, makes billions of dollars each year from drugs, including sales to the armed forces, we can expect to see laws continually on the books forcing people to be vaccinated. We can expect to see the drug trust’s watchdogs in our public schools seeing to it that not one child escapes indoctrination with the vaccination hoax. Perhaps some good union man or apologist for compulsory vaccination will give me a statement that vaccines positively will prevent the diseases which they are supposed to prevent. If any doctor will give me such a statement I’ll be glad to publish it. Thus far I have not found one doctor in the entire United States who will make such a statement or will stake his reputation that vaccines and serums will prevent disease.”

During the Spanish-American War of the late 19th century and the subsequent building of the Panama Canal, American deaths due to yellow fever were colossal. The disease also appeared to be spreading slowly northward into the continental United States. Through experimental transmission to mice, in 1900 Walter Reed demonstrated that yellow fever was caused by a virus, spread by mosquitoes. This discovery eventually enabled Max Theiler (1937) to propagate the virus in chick embryos & successfully produced an attenuated vaccine - the 17D strain - which is still in use today. 35

Editorial: Yellow fever vaccine
(From the British Medical Journal, February 2002)
“Vaccination is necessary despite recent adverse reports: “Three recently published articles, from Brazil, the United States, and Australia, and three follow up letters from Europe, have challenged the reputation of the yellow fever vaccine, 17D, that for more than 50 years was almost beyond reproach. These reports describe an illness resembling yellow fever occurring within a week of vaccination for yellow fever and leading to death within two weeks in six of 10 individuals. These adverse effects of the vaccine probably represent the delayed recognition of a very unusual outcome. The present recommendations must stand until an even safer vaccine is available. Primary 17D vaccination remains the least of several risks that any traveller to the tropics has to take. Medical history was made in 1927 when Stokes, Bauer, and Hudson infected rhesus monkeys with blood from Asibi, a native of the Gold Coast (now Ghana) with a mild attack of yellow fever. The Asibi strain proved not to be benign and several deaths in laboratory workers were subsequently attributed to it. Nevertheless, it was the strain of yellow fever virus that between 1933 and 1937 Theiler, Lloyd, Smith and coworkers attenuated by multiple passage in mouse brain and chick embryo tissue. This empirical process seemed to remove the viscerotropic and encephalitogenic properties of the Asibi strain, as shown by monkey inoculations, trials in laboratory workers, and subsequent field trials in Brazil, Bolivia, and Colombia.
  The human trials of this 17D vaccine certainly showed that the 176 or more passages in non-primate tissues had greatly attenuated it, and once problems due to lability of the vaccine and the mistaken use of pooled human serum as a stabilizer were ironed out it was hailed as a triumph. No serious attempt was made thereafter to develop an alternative as the 17D vaccine was regarded as safe and effective for at least 10 years, and infancy, pregnancy, egg allergy, and immunosuppression are its only present contraindications.
  The current communications describe 10 incidents that mostly resemble classic yellow fever, even though the possibility of intercurrent exposure to wild yellow fever virus was out of the question in five, and very unlikely in the others. Vaccine from at least three different manufacturers was involved, which suggests that any 17D derived product carries the same risk, albeit extremely small, of an acute yellow fever-like illness with high mortality. As concurrent reversion to virulence at several different manufacturing facilities seems unlikely it must be presumed that the capacity to cause this adverse effect was always present in the 17D vaccine seed. The most likely explanation seems to be that an idiosyncratic host susceptibility allows the development of virulence associated mutations in the 17D virus during a prolonged viraemic phase.
  There is almost nothing in the reports of the original trials of 17D to suggest a propensity to give rise to a short incubation illness of the sort now described, and it is probably only improved surveillance during the 1990s that has brought this adverse outcome to light, perhaps aided by more primary yellow fever vaccinations of older travellers who might be especially vulnerable. If so, the sudden rash of reports is probably artefactual and the use of 17D vaccine when and where the need exists should be maintained. There are no substitute vaccines, and the incidence of the complications described, serious though they are, appears to be low, of the order of one in a million. This is so low that no new candidate vaccine could be shown to carry a smaller risk without several years of use. Nevertheless, exploration of the feasibility of a non-live vaccine is now in order, just in case these serious reactions to 17D turn out to be more common than so far seems to be to the case.”