Vaccinated African Children 5x Increase In Mortality

…and then when they received the DTP only, that rate increased to 10x

Dtp-Vaccinated African Infants Had A Higher Death Rate Than Unvaccinated Infants, According To New “vax/unvax” Study

A study published earlier this month (see HERE ) examining the effect of vaccination on mortality in 3-5 month old infants in the West African nation of Guinea-Bissau showed a fivefold higher death rates in infants who received diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) and oral polio (OPV) vaccines compared to unvaccinated infants. The study, published in the journal EBioMedicine by Danish researchers from the Statens Serum Institut (SSI), was based on infants born between 1980 and 1983 and used data collected by the SSI’s Bandim Health Project (BHP). The study of vaccinated and unvaccinated African infants represents a rare, albeit limited, example of the kind of “vaxxed/unvaxxed’ study that many critics of American vaccination policy have long called for.

In their prospective study of over 1,000 infants, the SSI authors examined the effects on infant mortality of a new vaccination program that included both OPV and DTP vaccines. They reserved their harshest assessment for the newly introduced DTP vaccine, observing pointedly that “DTP was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated. No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP.”

In a broader criticism of global vaccine policy, the authors continued, “Unfortunately, DTP is the most widely used vaccine, and the proportion who receives DTP3 [three doses of the DTP vaccine] is used globally as an indicator of the performance of national vaccination programs.” In a further criticism of DTP vaccines, the analysis suggests that the OPV, which was typically administered together with DTP vaccine, had a moderating effect on the death risk of DTP. When (due to logistical problems with OPV availability) infants were vaccinated with DTP only, the death rates were even worse: as much as ten times higher than unvaccinated infants.

Unlike the recently leaked “vax/unvaxxed” study on homeschool children (see HERE) and the more commonly understood usage today of the “vaxxed/unvaxxed” concept, this analysis was narrower. The study examined infants during a brief window of time—the period between 3 and 6 months of age–and measured a single outcome—death. Described by the authors as a “natural experiment,” the study was designed in order to address on ongoing debate over the efficacy in low-income countries of the Expanded Immunization Program (EPI) since its introduction in the 1970s. At the time, the EPI targeted countries like Guinea-Bissau that had high infant mortality rates–under-five mortality rates were close to 50% there in 1978-9—and included four vaccines for seven diseases. Since individual vaccines included in the EPI might have different effects, the authors decried the absence of “individually randomized studies,” noting that “surprisingly few studies examined the introduction of vaccines and their impact on child survival.”

Due to its specific focus, the study design has little to say about the vaccine schedule debate in high-income countries and has several key limitations. Most notably, the “unvaccinated” children in the BHP study group only remained unvaccinated for a period of less than 14 weeks between 3 and 6 months of age until they attended the “quarterly weighing sessions” when OPV and DTP vaccines were administered. Even this briefly unvaccinated group wasn’t fully unvaccinated. The authors noted that “of the 651 unvaccinated children, 219 received DTP and/or OPV before their first weighing examination. These children counted as ‘unvaccinated’ until their first weighing examination.” Even though the death rate in the unvaccinated group was lower than in the vaccinated group, death rates were high on both sides. Five of the eighteen deaths covered in the study period occurred in the unvaccinated group and the authors don’t disclose whether any of these deaths had received a vaccination before the official examination “landmarks” used to define vaccination events in the database.

Despite the unusual nature of their “natural experiment”, this new BHP paper does offer some useful information for developed world vaccination debate, in which many express concern over excessively aggressive vaccine schedules that mandate “too many, too soon”. In that debate, the question of designing alternative schedules based on different health benefits of individual vaccines has risen to the fore as a number of doctors have offered non-standard schedules that depart from officially sanctioned schedules of public health authorities like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

Guinea-Bissau offers an opportunity for a natural experiment in vaxxed/unvaxxed science because the population there was largely unvaccinated until late in the 20th century. The BHP “took part in the introduction of vaccines” in Bandim starting in 1981; until the launch of the WHO’s Expanded Program on Immunization in that year, vaccination coverage in Guinea-Bissau was below 5%. The EPI schedule that was introduced in Bandim included several live attenuated vaccine strains: one dose of the BCG (tuberculosis) vaccine at birth, three doses of OPV starting at 3 months and one dose of measles vaccine after 9 months. In addition, three doses of the DTP vaccine, with its three inactivated bacterial components, were given along with the OPV starting at 3 months. Since “the disease protective effects [of the EPI] were well documented,” the BHP authors said, little effort went into studying the overall health effects of the program as a whole. Instead, “the main issue was at which age to introduce the [individual] vaccine most effectively.”

Dr. Peter Aaby, the senior author on this month’s paper, has long made the case for assessing the broad health effects of individual vaccines. Aaby founded the BHP in 1978 and has observed vaccination programs in Africa for decades since. He has argued for some time that there is a distinction between the health effects of live attenuated and inactivated vaccines. Aaby has argued for instance, that the health benefits of measles vaccination (an attenuated live virus) go beyond the prevention of deaths associated with acute measles infection. By contrast, Aaby has argued that DTP vaccines have had no such broad benefit. In this most recent study, he makes the case against DTP even more strongly, demonstrating that DTP vaccines sharply increased death rates in African infants.

Aaby’s theory that the “non-specific effects” (NSEs) of vaccination outweigh their effect on disease prevention suggests a more nuanced view of vaccination schedules than the simple “pro-vaccine vs anti-vaccine” controversy touted in most media coverage of the vaccine debate. If different vaccines can have opposing non-specific effects, then the net benefits of an overall schedule would require close monitoring and the detailed design of vaccine schedules would be a subject for policy debate rather than the all-or-nothing stance of many public health officials. In their recent paper, the BHP authors offer support for the need to assess the health effects of the entire EPI schedule rather than the disease protection effects of individual vaccines. Despite past BHP publications providing evidence for beneficial NSEs of the measles vaccines contained in the EPI introduced in Guinea-Bissau, the overall health outcomes that ensued following the EPI’s introduction were negative. In their new paper, the BHP authors showed that infant death rates following the new vaccine program introduction more than doubled, going from 4.7 per 100 person-years in 1980 to 12.1 in 1983.

Harsh criticism of one of the foundational pieces of the modern immunization schedule is notable when it comes from an insider like Dr. Aaby. His conclusion that “all currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis” is an urgent call for action from the WHO.

Source

— Ethiopia: Analytical Summary – Immunization And Vaccines Development

— Historic Commitment from African Heads of State to Advance Immunization in Africa

— SHOCK STUDY: Countries With Highest Vaccination Rates Have Highest Infant Mortality Rates, Too

— 2017 Research Shows Every Human Vaccine Is Contaminated With Inorganic Chemical Compounds – 44 Vaccines Tested

Why The Hell Is A Computer Software Person (Bill Gates) Even Involved In Vaccine? I’ve got a very eerie feeling about this guy

__

The Tyranny of Human Rights Organizations

My Note: The following article reflects a very objective observation of the so-called, Human-rights groups. I remember hearing Amnesty International calling for African countries to arrest and detain ex-President G.W. Bush during his 2011 Africa visit. The curiousest thing is that these organizations are operating from the West, yet, they never dare to make the same sort of request when Mr. Bush is in the West

How the West is seeking to usurp Africa’s struggle for freedom and democracy using a humanitarian language

Since the end of the Cold War, a movement to save Africa from Africans has grown and gained momentum across the Western world. This movement is reflected in campaigns to end poverty by giving aid and canceling debt, to try African leaders at the International Criminal Court and to promote human rights. On the face of it, this movement seems humane and well intentioned.

But on close examination, this movement is an attempt to usurp the sovereignty and therefore democratic content of our continent’s struggle for independence. My interest in this article is the growth of a human rights police wielding a stick on the heads of elected African leaders.

Two governments in contemporary Africa have been very successful at an autonomous state building and economic reconstruction project – Rwanda under Paul Kagame and Ethiopia and the late Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. They have equally been victims of a near-jihad by the human rights police claiming to represent the real interests of their citizens. Two other countries have been unable to engineer an autonomous project of state and economic reconstruction. They have instead remained under management by the United Nations – Liberia and Sierra Leone. These are the darlings of the human rights community.

Why are Africa’s most successful governments at state and economic reconstruction vilified while those managed by donors are praised and presented as model examples? The answer is that their leaders take orders from London Paris and Washington DC. Perhaps I am overstating the case. However, there is reason to believe that some elements in Western society would like to create an Africa that in their own image. Anything that is not a reproduction of Western society is not only seen as abnormal but also a danger to be fought and annihilated.

For example, beginning mid last year, the international press (largely western based or managed) has launched a jihad against the government of Kagame in Rwanda. The ammunition for the this jihad is a shoddy and doggy report by a UN “panel of experts” that alleges Rwanda to be training and arming M23 rebels fighting the government of President Joseph Kabila of DR Congo.

The third party and cheer leader of this triumvirate is the international human rights community which has been leading the campaign against Kigali for nearly two decades. Given that the post genocide government in Kigali represents the most successful state attempt in post independence Africa to serve ordinary citizens, this should surprise us. Actually it should not and this is why.

International human rights groups largely founded and financed by the West have increasingly become powerful voices shaping politics in Africa. Their voice is respected by governments and mass media in the West. Given Africa’s dependence on Western aid, our leaders shape our politics around what these groups are saying. But this tends to undermine our sovereignty and nascent democratic institutions.

It also reflects growing success by Western countries to shape post colonial Africa in their own image. Kagame’s crime has been to place the interests of Rwanda and his people above the demands of these organizations. The price of this insistence on independence may be catastrophic for him and Rwanda. Indeed, it has been the experience of other African leaders who tried this before him – Patrice Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah, Milton Obote and Thomas Sankara.

Human rights groups are often single-issue organizations and seek to make their single issue the only issue on which to judge a country. Thus, they may pick one variable e.g. the arrest of one opposition politician and without reference to facts or context use their influence in western capitals to cause economic sanctions, cancelation of aid, diplomatic pressure and blackmail to bully a poor country to acquiesce to their demands. It does not matter whether the government has respected the rights of 10m of its citizens and done its best to serve them. This single issue would be enough straw to break the nation’s will.

This shows that these international human rights groups are opposed to sovereignty which African countries achieved through hard-won battles of national independence. They claim to represent universal human values that know no boundaries. Yet most of their campaign is actually based on Western values born of a specific historical experience. Meanwhile, these organizations are not answerable to anyone. Their leaders and executives are not elected. There is no democratic way to hold them accountable for their actions.

Thus, the beneficiaries of the activism by human rights groups have no recourse to elections to remove their leaders from office if they did not meet specific expectations. For example, Human Rights Watch’s campaign against the government of Rwanda has powerful implications on that country’s tourism, trade, investment and aid – all of which impact significantly on the livelihoods of the people of Rwanda. How can Rwanda’s citizens harmed by the negative campaign by HRW hold this organization and its leaders to account? In fact the hubris with which HRW leader Kenneth Roth speaks as the legitimate voice of Rwandans against its elected leaders can only be explained as racism.

The only accountability these groups have is financial – and to their funders in the West. These funders – the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and the Open Society Institute are far removed – both physically and ideologically from the needs of the ordinary African who is most affected by the campaign of their client NGOs. There is no political accountability to the beneficiaries of the advocacy by human rights groups. The only accountability they do is by showing their work i.e. exposing human rights abuses. The structure of incentives here encourages these groups to name and shame human rights violators, a factor that leads them to vilify or even distort and blinds them from appreciating context.

Thus, when you visit Africa today, our public policies are designed by the IMF and World Bank, the hungry are fed by World Food Program, the ill are treated by Red Cross and Doctors without Borders, refugees are cared for by UNHCR, those in conflict are “protected” by UN peacekeepers, our Malaria is fought by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, our story is told by The New York Times, our poverty is fought by Jeffrey Sachs and Bono, our crimes are tried by the ICC, our public serves are financed by a generous international aid community, our debts are cancelled, our press freedom is defended by Reporters without Borders and CPJ, our human rights are promoted by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Our heroes are Angelina Jolly and George Clooney, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy.

The tragic thing is that we African elites have been complicity in these processes to usurp our sovereignty and democratic rights. Whether this has been due to opportunism or ignorance, naivety or ideological bankruptcy or the sheer weight of our accumulated failures, we have actively aided and abated these developments. The challenge of our generation is to resist this neocolonial project dressed in the old language of human rights that seeks to demote us from citizens actively fighting for their rights to mere recipients of international charity and hence relegated to playing the role of spectator in the struggles shaping our destiny.

 

Continue reading…

__

Pro-Abortion Propaganda Aimed at Destroying Ethiopian Culture

Psalm 127:3

Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward

John 8:44

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies

As of 2005, abortion is legal in Ethiopia for so many exceptions that it is, practically speaking, abortion on demand — rape, incest, fetal defects (eugenics), the physical or mental health of the mother, economic reasons and reasons of age of the mother. According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, an incredible 60,000 women still suffer serious abortion complications every year, and at least 100 of them die. It seems that the population control groups are satisfied merely with legalizing abortion and are not particularly interested in safeguarding the health of Ethiopian women.

“Family planning” billboards are everywhere. The most obnoxious are World Vision’s, which show a starving and unhappy family of seven people, all looking desperate and dressed in rags, gathered around a small table with just a scrap of food on it. People see this blatantly direct propaganda 100 times and begin to believe its almost subliminal message.

Sensations (“Make Your Life Sensational!”) condom ads and billboards are also everywhere in Addis Ababa. One Muslim-operated pharmacy had a life-sized condom poster right inside its door. Amusingly, someone had wrapped a towel around the head of the rather immodestly dressed young lady featured on the poster as a makeshift hajab. This struck me as rather schizophrenic; go ahead and corrupt the women’s sexuality, but make darn sure their heads are covered. DKT International sponsors annual fashion shows in Addis featuring models wearing dresses made entirely out of condoms. All of this is so wildly out of sync with African customs and culture, we can only conclude that these groups are deliberately and consciously attempting to destroy not only African culture and innocence, but the Africans themselves.

I visited a couple of pharmacies, and found that DKT International heavily subsidizes its “Choice” birth control pills, selling them for about 62 cents per cycle. Pharmacists sell them right over the counter with no consultation with a doctor – a practice that would not be tolerated even for a minute in Europe or the USA. USAID and Bayer Pharma have teamed up to sell the “Microgynon” birth control pill for the same price. DKT also sells the “Confidence” abortifacient injection for about 31 cents for three months of sterility, and these are administered by the pharmacist right behind the counter.

Then, of course, there is the most aggressively evil organization on Earth, Marie Stopes International, (btw. Zambia recently banned this organization for conducting illegal abortions) which makes International Planned Parenthood Federation look like a bunch of blushing virgins. There are a dozen Marie Stopes abortion mills in Addis Ababa, and each is a gigantic abortion factory doing over ten thousand every year.

Abortion still carries a huge stigma in Ethiopia, so the women almost always arrive alone. Unlike in the USA, the men usually standing outside the abortion mills are not husbands or boyfriends; they are pimps. They prey on the women going through the emotional and spiritual assault of abortion, accosting them when they exit the clinic. As a result, prostitution is flourishing in Addis Ababa.

Most obnoxious of all are the touts that Marie Stopes hires to accost women passing by, asking them if they are in need of abortions. These hawkers even tell men that, if their wives or daughters ever need abortion, they can come visit their abortion mill.

Remember that these are the people – Western progressives – who say that we must all respect the customs and cultures of other lands.

The headlong rush of the United Nations and all of the pro-abortion NGOs seems to be directed at “homogenizing” the world so that the people of every nation will think and act just like Europeans or Americans. I have seen this baleful influence hard at work in countries from the Philippines to Papua New Guinea, from Cameroon to Cambodia.

What ever happened to the vaunted “respect for diversity?” Liberals tell us that we must respect “diversity” in terms of bizarre sexual acts and orientations, but what about respect for different cultures?

Unique and colorful cultures and customs all over the world are fast disappearing as everyone — from city dweller to villager, from professional to small farmer — is being forced to conform to the same mold. Even the most benign indigenous practices and customs are being forcibly propelled to extinction. Not only is this becoming a very anti-life world, it is becoming boring as well.

Source

Report Proves Planned Parenthood Targets Blacks, Hispanics

A new reported issued by the pro-life group Life Dynamics proves that Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry in the United States target black and Hispanic Americans by placing abortion facilities in communities with high minority populations.

Titled, “Racial Targeting and Population Control,” the new report validates the claims pro-life advocates have made for years — and that Life Dynamics made in its groundbreaking Maafa21 video released two years ago — showing that abortion advocates have purposefully placed abortion centers in urban areas with high percentages of black and Hispanic residents.

 

Continue reading…

 

 

African Women Sue Government Clinics For Coerced Sterilizations

My note: If they dare to coerce their own minority population this way imagine the degree of havoc they can wreak on defenseless African women? Read here

A group of Kenyan women have filed suit against government health-care clinics in 5 different countries, charging that they were sterilized against their will.

The plaintiffs are all HIV-positive. Some testify that they were told sterilization was mandatory, or threatened that their AIDS medicines would be withdrawn if they refused to undergo the operation. Others say they signed a consent form that they did not understand, either because they are illiterate or because they were drugged at the time.

The women filed their suits in Zambia, South Africa, Malawi, Namibia, and Kenya. Their legal challenge comes in the wake of a report that coerced sterilizations have become routine in public hospitals in Africa.

Source

__

Kill Ethiopian Babies!

The Author called his article, “Population, famine and fate in Ethiopia”, and he tells us, “History is unfair. Conversations between those who got lucky and those left holding the other end of the stick are awkward. But we cannot go on ignoring the elephant in the room. We have to start talking about population again…. too many babies, not good!”

Continue reading…

After reading the above article in the “Salt Lake Tribune”, I ask myself, why on earth do the medias in North America and Europe try to convince their readers, listeners and viewers, that Overpopulation is Africa’s biggest problem?

The greatest danger facing Africa and other less-developed regions today is the potential to misunderstand the demographic trends of the modern world, to misinterpret the purpose of foreign aid and lending operations that include population control, and to fail to recognize the supreme political importance of demographics and the enormity of what’s at stake.

The nightmare is plainly visible for those who have eyes and minds to see and a will to understand. And today, in Africa and other so-called third world countries, this nightmare is continuing and growing more frightening as each day goes by. Not because of any viral pandemic, sweeping across the plains of Africa, but because of an orchestrated pandemic of lies and deceit, sweeping across the globe via a Western-controlled media campaign. In actual fact, it is pre-existing illnesses (the majority of which could be treated relatively easily and cheaply, but which are not) which are now accounting for so much of these spiraling conventional AIDS death statistics. The World Health Organization, World Bank, UNAIDS, associated UN organizations, the pharmaceutical giants and related media colleagues etc., are manipulating the current AIDS ‘epidemic’ in order to continue with their scare-mongering AIDS DEATH HEADLINES.

More shamefully, these organizations are now colluding in the delivery of toxic drugs into Africa and other so-called third world countries, with the express intent of using these drugs as a form of population control in the recipient nations.

Most “Aid” agencies are „agent-provocateurs,” and know how to do a perfect job in controlling our populations. “Aid” agencies who run population programs in developing countries go to a great deal of trouble to avoid giving the appearance of having a political agenda. They speak of “family planning” and “reproductive health,” of “child-spacing” and “social development.” But in reality, these are the programs designed by those “other agencies of government” which, working through Western governments and their agents, define policies that are forced on nations like Ethiopia.

Although, the wolf in sheep’s clothing ruse, of eugenics-loving fascist anti-Africans, hiding their true nature under the guise of “humanitarian efforts” is something we wouldn’t put past them. Bad guys almost never consider themselves to be the “bad” guys, but go through such sacrifices to convince people that they are the “good” guys. The sad thing is that people fall for it.

Additional viewing

________________________________________