The article below is by Jon Rappaport.  Click here to pull up his bio.  The article was published on the Tetrahedron site, original URL here.  

SMALLPOX VACCINE RESULTS ARE IN

By Jon Rappoport

DECEMBER 9. The first returns are in on the smallpox vaccine. A recent multi-center US government clinical trial on 200 “young adults” has been completed.

MSNBC reports. The volunteers who got the shot were VERY healthy to begin with. One researcher, Kathy Edwards, called them the “crème de la crème.”

Okay? So get this. “Yet when she [Edwards] inoculated them with smallpox vaccine, arms swelled, temperatures spiked and panic spread [at Baylor University]. It was the same at clinics in Iowa, Tennessee, and California.”

Stats: After the shot, one-third of the volunteers missed at least a day of work or school. 75 out of 200 experienced high fever. “Several were put on antibiotics because physicians worried that their blisters signaled a bacterial infection.”

Wow.

And look, smallpox is a VIRUS, and antibiotics DON’T WORK against viruses. So, in essence, the researchers were inferring that the vaccine SUPPRESSED THE IMMUNE SYSTEMS of the volunteers --- thus allowing bacterial infections to bloom suddenly---OR the vaccine was contaminated with bacteria to begin with.

Researcher Edwards, who headed up the study, said, “I can read all day about it [the adverse effects of the vaccine], but seeing it is quite impressive. The reactions we saw were really quite remarkable.”

When a researcher makes a comment like this, you know some very bad things are happening.

AND THIS WAS A POPULATION OF EXTREMELY HEALTHY VOLUNTEERS. YOUNG ADULTS WHO SHOULD BE AT THE VERY PEAK OF LIFE, WITH THEIR IMMUNE DEFENSES FULLY INTACT.

Of course, this story didn’t get much play in the press. But the handwriting is on the wall. Anyone can see what’ll happen if they start shooting up people by the millions with the vaccine. For example, people who don’t qualify as severely immune suppressed by any obvious assessment, but still do, in fact, have reduced immune capacity---AND THAT IS A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE.---these folks will be AT GREAT RISK from the vaccine.

This government study is KEY. Because later on, they will try to cover up the devastating effects of the vaccine. They will lie, distort, omit. But right now, here it is. Out in the open. The results, for all to see.

Let me tell you something. The CDC WANTED to release the results of this study. They wanted to go on the record now, before the stuff really hits the fan. They are very frightened of being nailed for killing people with the vaccine.

About the author: Jon Rappoport has worked as a free-lance investigative reporter for 20 years. He has written articles on politics, health, media, culture and art for LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, Village Voice, Nexus, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. His website is: http://www.stratiawire.com

I find this a very biased report which does nothing

but feed the mass hysteria and is entirely misleading

and inaccurate.

For example, Rappoport wrote:

"Yet when she [Edwards]

> inoculated them with smallpox

> vaccine, arms swelled, temperatures spiked

Arms swelling, and temperatures....so? This happens

to babies, and many people who get many vaccines...and

it isn't necessary dangerous, only a sign that

something foreign has invaded the body.

They do not say how swollen--just the site, the upper

arm, entire arm?...or how high a temperature, and

"spiked" is a pregnant word. What if he would have

said "temperatures rose"? It would not have had the

same impact.

and panic

> spread [at Baylor

> University]. It was the same at clinics in Iowa,

> Tennessee, and

> California."

You'd think that Edwards was the researcher at Baylor

from this article. However, Wendy Keitel was the

principle investigator at Baylor, while Kathryn

Edwards was at Vanderbilt. Robert Couch is overseeing

all these university trials, including one near SF.

THIS kind of writing by someone by Rappaport, and the often

reaction to it, are what I see as being the real

problem, and a problem that this author and the

panic-ridden like him are perpetuating.

> Stats: After the shot,

This is inaccurate. The vaccination is not a shot.

It is a bifurcated needle, dipped into the vaccinia,

and with a droplet on the needle the skin is slightly

pricked a few times.

one-third of the volunteers

> missed at least a day

> of work or school.

75 out of 200 experienced high

> fever.

How many are 1/3, and from which study? From what I

understand the initial two groups at Baylor were 15

each, with different dilutions for each group of

Aventis, and a third group of 15 with a full dilution

of Dryvax. That's 45. Vanderbilt is studying 75-100 individuals

http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/index.html?ID=2135

. Iowa is using 95 as their number.

http://www.uiowa.edu/%7Eournews/2002/june/0620smallpox-study.html



So, do the math...and try to figure out, what 200

subjects is Rappaport referring to, and which 75 had

the side effects? What constitutes the 1/3 he's

referring to? Perhaps the 15 from Baylor who had the undiluted Dryvax...and were likely expected to have such a reaction? But then what about the 75 and 200 numbers...where do they come from?

He also doesn't say how many of these side effects

were proven to be due to the vaccines, how many had

other reasons, and how many used the vaccine as an

excuse to not go to school. There is no evidence here

that makes sense.

So, in essence, the researchers were

> inferring that the vaccine

> SUPPRESSED THE IMMUNE SYSTEMS of the

> volunteers---thus allowing

> bacterial infections to bloom suddenly---OR the

> vaccine was contaminated

> with bacteria to begin with.

I don't agree. If you've ever seen a smallpox scab,

you know that it's hard to keep from scratching

because it is so itchy. I know. I was inoculated as a kid, as was the rest of my family when we came from Europe. Kids all over the world have

bacterial infections from scratching scabs and wounds

that aren't smallpox related, and are often given

antibiotic creams and other measures to keep

infections from occurring. The above didn't indicate

what kind of antibiotic and in what form, and to go

off on half-ass information and make assumptions about

researchers inferences in a negative light only

increases fear, hysteria and the keeps the "panic"

going.

> Researcher Edwards, who headed up the study,

She headed it up ONLY at Vanderbilt.

http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/reporter/index.html?ID=2135

The study is one study, divided among several

universities, and headed up by Robert Couch.

said,

> "I can read all day

> about it [the adverse effects of the vaccine], but

> seeing it is quite

> impressive. The reactions we saw were really quite

> remarkable."

Funny, how Rappaport had to put the essential part as

a parenthetical, particularly since without the

parantheses she could have been talking about

something else altogether. She could have been

talking about the old Aventis vaccine which hadn't

been used for ages, and how well it worked. I don't

trust Rappaport's writing at all.

> When a researcher makes a comment like this, you

> know some very bad

> things are happening.

Not so, considering we don't even know what Edwards

really talking about or if Rappaport quoted her out of

context,or whether it was even her quote in the first

place.

> Of course, this story didn't get much play in the

> press.

And with that kind of journalism, it probably won't.

Most respectable media wait until they have some solid

facts to report, not innuendos, conjectures, false

statistics and unusable quotes.

Don't you find it funny that there is no other

inflammatory article about these studies online other

than Rappaport's? Any other articles refer to his,

and no respectable media types are pursuing his claims

thus far. If they do, I'd llike to see some solid

investagation behind it, because as it stands now it's

only suitable to be in some tabloid on the supermarket

shelves.

But the

> handwriting is on the wall.

Not on mine, because I don't let guys like Rappaport

scribble on my walls.

Anyone can see what'll

> happen if they start

> shooting up people by the millions with the vaccine.

Again, the vaccine isn't a shot or an injection, and

you can't determine anything based on one person's

biased, inaccurate and inflammatory reporting.

> For example, people

> who don't qualify as severely immune suppressed by

> any obvious

> assessment, but still do, in fact, have reduced

> immune capacity---AND

> THAT IS A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE.---these folks will be

> AT GREAT RISK from

> the vaccine.

This is why the research deals with the minimum

dilution that can be given--in order to make it as

safe as possible and still effective. I still haven't

heard anyone say it will be mandatory for even healthy

individuals. Also, immune compromised people are at a grearter risk for colds, flu, allergries, and many other conditions. This is nothing new and can't be applied only to vaccines.



> This government study is KEY.

Absolutely, but we have yet to know the government

study. Rappaport's rag is no government study. Once

we know the facts and not some compilation of

half-truths and inflammatory comments. All we know

about right now is that Rappaport is unreliable and a

provacateur.



> . They will

> lie, distort, omit.

You mean like Rapapport did in his article???

Okay, here are some facts about this study, amongst

those I've peppered this post with, so excuse me if

repeat something.

Baylor is only one of many universities who have

received NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and

Infectious Diseases) grants to study vaccines of all

kinds, including TB, and many more. Right now,

several of the VTEU's are studying dilutions of

smallpox vaccines and what is the most they can be

diluted and still be effective. Believe me, when it

comes to NIH grants, the guidelines are so rigid for

using human subjects, that it is sometimes impossible

to find people to take part. Simply picking some

healthy kids off campus, is NOT all there is to it. I

know. I administer NIH (National Institutes of

Health) and DHHS (Department of Health and Human

Services) and BHPr (Bureau of Health Professions)

grants and pay subjects in clinical trials in nursing

research all day long. I know the crap both subjects,

and especially investigators go through to do their

research. It isn't easy by any stretch of the

imagination.

In addition, all research has to have a reason, a good

and worthwhile one. Simply "shooting" kids up with

vaccine to see how they will respond is not it. They

are testing various dilutions, to do the least harm

possible. Also, research subjects, especially with

something like this, are compensated monetarily, their

medical care provided for, and it is all voluntary.

If you want more facts about the studies in

particular, here are some competent articles on

rsearch on vaccines on young people done by the NIAID

VTEU programs that Rappaport wrote about.

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/mar2002/hhs-28.htm

(NIH/DHHS)

http://content.nejm.org/content/vol346/issue17/index.shtml

(April 2002 New England Journal of Medicine which

describes tests in minute detail..)

Finally, if anyone took the time to read Rappaports

bio on his homepage, you may see that he is very

likely a guy with an agenda who fancies himself a Geraldo Rivera or Ralph Nader wannabe..