By Christina England | November 1st, 2011 |
Recently, there has been a vast amount of media coverage exposing many leading stores sexualizing children through the marketing of inappropriate clothing. Mini skirts, crop tops, and sexy under-wear for primary school children, even high heels for toddlers fill the shelves, leaving parents shocked and outraged.
One little girl Suri Cruise, the daughter of Tom Cruise, is often seen teetering around in high heels whilst wearing bright red lip gloss at the tender age of five. In fact this very young child even has her own ‘fashion blog’, showing interested readers her vast array of tiny high heels whilst sharing her latest fashion tips.
Whilst many parents appear outraged by this seemingly blatant sexploitation of such a young child and are sharing their feelings of disgust on various blogs around the internet, the same emotion evades parents completely when it comes to vaccination. Parents are only too happy to have their little darlings vaccinated with the latest must have vaccine for sexually transmitted diseases and happily sign consent forms without giving it a second thought.
Why is it, that there is not the same level of disgust and outrage when drug companies recommend children from birth vaccinations for sexual diseases? Don’t American parents realize that the government has mandated a vaccination for a venereal disease at birth?
In fact Dr Judith Reisman goes as far as to say these vaccines are little more than ‘condoms in the veins’.
The US government insists that children are vaccinated with the Hepatitis B vaccine on the day that they are born. Hepatitis B is a STD or SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE therefore, it is highly unlikely that a tiny baby is going to come into contact with this disease unless they have shared needles, had sex with an infected person or has received contaminated blood.
This being the case, the only possible way that a newborn baby can get Hepatitis B is by having an infected mother give birth to them. So why is the US government insistent that all babies are vaccinated? Why do they not simply identify pregnant mothers who have the disease and vaccinate just those babies? Or better still not give this highly toxic and dangerous vaccination at all?
Dr Reisman is clearly disgusted by what she sees and states:
“Just look at child vaccines. The more pornography and sexology increase juvenile sexual activity, the more big pharma can step in with an Hepatitis B vaccine for infants. HepB is a sexually transmitted disease, and there is no reason to give the vaccine to babies. But big pharma has been making a fortune on it ever since states have begun mandating that all of our little darlings, with their wee tiny hearts and lungs and no immune system functioning, be shot up with it (and recently small girls with Human Papilloma Virus, HPV vaccines) all in the name of protecting them. What we don’t want to do is turn off the pornography flood (no administration has chosen to do that) because it fuels so many other things. And in the wings are vaccines for syphilis and gonorrhea and a whole host of other sexually transmitted diseases.”
She is a strong lady with powerful views and I believe she is correct in her assumptions.
At the ages of nine through twelve, young girls and boys are now recommended the HPV vaccine. Once again this vaccine, according to the manufacturers Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, is for an STD which has been said to cause cervical cancer. I say ‘said to cause cervical cancer’, as there appears to be very little evidence available to support this theory.
Dr Sin Hang Lee who now works with the group Sane Vax says:
The current type-specific HPV vaccines have claimed to be almost 100% effective against infection by HPV-16 and HPV-18, and perhaps also against HPV-31 and HPV-45 infections. However, we do not know if these four HPV types are the most prevalent carcinogenic HPV genotypes in the US. According to two published reports – one by the CDC, HPV-52 not HPV-16 or HPV-18 was found to be the most prevalent “carcinogenic” genotype infecting young American women.
It is not transient HPV infections, but a persistent high-risk HPV infection that may initiate cervical cancer… Therefore, it is the persistent infection, not the virus that determines cervical cancer risk.
Dr. Sin Hang Lee -Pathologist, Milford Hospital
Director, Milford Medical Laboratory, Milford, CT
Leave a Reply