by Arjun Walia, via Lew Rockwell:

More and more parents around the globe are choosing to opt out of vaccinating themselves and their children. As a result of this trend that’s been gaining more and more momentum, a harsh response has come from the “pro-vaccine” community -criticizing parents for their decision to not vaccinate. At the end of the day it’s not really about “pro-vaccination” or “anti-vaccination,” it’s not one “against” the other or about pointing fingers and judgement, it’s simply about looking at all of the information from a neutral standpoint. It’s about asking questions and communicating so people can make the best possible decisions for themselves and their children. Parents love their kids and the vaccine “controversy” has made it difficult for many parents to know what to do.

The study concludes with the observation that “after repeated vaccine controversies in France, some vaccine hesitancy exists among French GPs, whose recommendation behaviours depend on their trust in authorities, their perception of the utility and risks of vaccines, and their comfort in explaining them.”

As a result, the study outlines how “up to 43 % of GPs sometimes. or never, recommend at least one specific vaccine to their patients.”

The percentages differ because the study was broken down as to which vaccines, and whether they are recommended never, sometimes, often or always. You can refer to the study for more details.

The authors’ overall findings “suggest that VH [vaccine hesitancy] is prevalent among French GPs. It may make them ill at ease in addressing their patients’ concerns about vaccination, which in turn might reinforce patients’ VH.”

Again, this isn’t a secret, another study (out of many, cited in the France publication) outlines how “more research is needed to understand why some health professionals, trained in medical sciences, still have doubts regarding the safety and effectiveness of vaccination.” (source)

Parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their children are not just doing it based on belief, they are doing it based on science and information, some of which will be presented in this article, and more.

The Ingredients

Common vaccine ingredients include:

• Aluminum gels or salts of aluminum which are added as adjuvants to help the vaccine stimulate a better response. Adjuvants help promote an earlier, more potent response, and more persistent immune response to the vaccine.
• Antibiotics which are added to some vaccines to prevent the growth of germs (bacteria) during production and storage of the vaccine. No vaccine produced in the United States contains penicillin.
• Egg protein is found in influenza and yellow fever vaccines, which are prepared using chicken eggs. Ordinarily, persons who are able to eat eggs or egg products safely can receive these vaccines.
• Formaldehyde is used to inactivate bacterial products for toxoid vaccines, (these are vaccines that use an inactive bacterial toxin to produce immunity.) It is also used to kill unwanted viruses and bacteria that might contaminate the vaccine during production. Most formaldehyde is removed from the vaccine before it is packaged.
• Monosodium glutamate (MSG) and 2-phenoxy-ethanol which are used as stabilizers in a few vaccines to help the vaccine remain unchanged when the vaccine is exposed to heat, light, acidity, or humidity.
• Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that is added to vials of vaccine that contain more than one dose to prevent contamination and growth of potentially harmful bacteria
• Aborted Human Fetal Cells

Aluminum

Let’s talk about aluminum for a bit. When it comes to the most widely used adjuvant ingredient found within vaccines, many questions have yet to be answered, particularly when it comes to where the aluminum goes after injection, an issue known as biopersistence.

It’s been put into vaccines for decades, with not one study being published showing that it’s safe to inject into humans.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and vaccine manufacturers themselves have not conducted or included appropriate toxicity studies/testing proving the safety of aluminum, or any other ingredients, for that matter. These ingredients have been put into vaccines based on the assumption that they are safe. Yes, you read that correctly. It’s kind of disturbing, isn’t it?

So because vaccines have been viewed as non-toxic substances, the FDA and vaccine manufactures have not conducted appropriate toxicity studies to prove the safety of vaccine ingredients – more specifically, aluminum.(source)

I have a document from 2002 from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)…discussing the assessment of vaccine ingredients…and testing specifically in animal models…Back then, the FDA states that the routine toxicity studies in animals with vaccine ingredients have not been conducted because it was assumed that these ingredients are safe, when I read this I was kind of pulling my hairs out [thinking] ‘So, this is your indisputable evidence of safety?’ – Dr. Lucija Tomlijenovic, PhD., a post-doctoral fellow at the University of British Columbia where she works in neurosciences and the Department of Medicine. (source)

One reason this question arises is because a causative role has been established in what’s known as macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) lesion in patients who have myalgic encephalomyelitis, or brain inflammation. Myalgia, arthralgia, chronic fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, dysautonomia, and autoimmunity have been temporally linked to aluminium adjuvant-containing vaccine administration (Gherardi and Authier, 2003; Authier et al., 2003; Exley et al., 2009; Rosenblum et al., 2011; Santiago et al., 2014; Brinth et al., 2015; Palmieri et al., 2016).

“Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph nodes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggested that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term.” (source)

This study has prompted further research evaluating the potential hazards of injected aluminum, which begs the question, why hasn’t proper evidence and evaluation been published showing that it’s safe to inject aluminum into babies via several vaccines in a short period of time? Aluminum adjuvants may be effective for stimulating an immune response, but to simply presume there are no consequences for doing this, or to not emphasize or even state the adverse effects that have been discovered, is, I would argue, criminally negligent.

A study published in BMC Medicine showed that alum-containing vaccines were associated with the appearance of aluminum deposits in distant organs, such as the spleen and brain, and were still detectable one year after injection. The same group from France published another study two years later, emphasizing that there are “several gaps in the knowledge on alum particles, including their exact mechanisms of action, their fate after injection, their systemic dissemination, and their safety on the long-term. Efforts have been done in the last years to develop novel adjuvants, but attempts to seriously examine safety concerns raised by the bio-persistent character and brain accumulation of alum particles have not been made.”

Fast forward to this year, and multiple in vivo studies have been published showing that injected aluminum, and aluminum used as an adjuvant within vaccines, does not come into the same method of excretion as aluminum that accumulates in our body from our food, for example. Our bodies do a good job at eliminating this type of aluminum, but the same cannot be said of injected aluminum. This is why multiple studies are implicating injected aluminum with multiple neurodegenerative disorders, like autism in the short term, or Alzheimer’s in the long term, because aluminum could be going to the brain and staying there for life.

Apart from observed behavioural abnormalities, the 2017 study showed that the “measurement of cerebral Al (aluminum) revealed a significantly higher Al level in brains from animals injected . . . than in brains from control group.” (source)

What’s also interesting is that there was “no significant increase” detected in the animals that were injected with a higher dose.

It’s concerning, especially because we already know that environmental aluminium has long been suspected to act as a co-factor in several chronic neurological diseases (Van Rensburg et al., 2001; De Sole et al., 2013; Exley 2013, 2014). Please refer to these studies to see the mechanism by which these authors are suggesting aluminum is transported to the brain.

“Experimental research . . . clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans.”

Read More @ LewRockwell.com