children

July 7, 2021July 7, 2021

Plandemic Perspective: Part III

**Originally posted on 06/13/2020**

Here comes another perspective. Y’all ready? We have now clearly outlined how masks are NOT SUPPORTED by scientific evidence. See my previous (lengthy) mask post. Select govt officials want “community encouragement” and PEER PRESSURE to drive these unhealthy actions. Police do not want involved for very good reasons. Have we considered the safety issues?I fully believe that masks are DANGEROUS and I’ll tell you why…

1) masks do not allow you to read facial expressions

2) masks degrade situational awareness

3) masks hinder lip-reading and inhibit communication

4) masks create fear and division

These are all recipes for a very dangerous social situation. If there is a violent event, it would be VERY DIFFICULT to identify perpetrators when every person is wearing a mask. If someone is running toward you with a mask, you cannot quickly differentiate scared from angry, confused, or happy. Any person that runs at you with a mask during a high-stress event will be treated as the enemy because the human body protects itself. And, it will always protect itself by erring on the side of caution!

Now imagine a mass casualty event. How are security persons, first responders, or fellow good samaritans supposed to identify who-is-who in a sea of masks?! They CANNOT. Anyone can quickly escape with a mask on, if everyone is wearing a mask! Or: Everyone will be treated like a suspect until cleared. I cannot imagine the trauma generated from a situation like that.

This is not the world you want. You just don’t. Why are we afraid to BREATHE around each other?! We are sending the message that we cannot even exist together. We no longer communicate a simple smile in passing. Have you felt how alienating it is to smile to masked people? I constantly feel judged, shamed, hated, and uncomfortable around masked people. Yet, I smile anyways. I can’t tell if you’re smiling back in your mask and your eyes only show me fear.

We have got to start thinking about the social repercussions of distancing and masking. Humans are SOCIAL beings and these demented recommendations are just that — RECOMMENDATIONS. Not laws, nor do you want them to become laws. YOU CAN SAY NO. NO IS AN ANSWER. I behoove you to stand up and flatten the fear!

Take off the masks, smile at your neighbor, and live in the world you want to see. Support your community health, feel safe using your face, and for goodness sake DON’T PUT THAT GARBAGE ON YOUR CHILD’S FACE.

*If you disagree, fine. Let’s talk or maybe you can simply exit stage left…

November 1, 2019November 1, 2019

Disease is NOT Normal

STOP NORMALIZING asthma, chronic ear infections, eczema, food/seasonal allergies, and neurocognitive delays. What are we doing to our immune systems that is causing these OVER-REACTIONS in our children?

Vaccines contain adjuvants that are designed to create an immune RESPONSE. Perhaps these doses of adjuvants are creating an OVER response? With any pharmaceutical there is a possibility of overt action…

》too much blood pressure medication = low BP
》too much insulin = low sugar
》too much antibiotic = bye-bye biome balance, hello opportunistic virulent and resistant organisms
》too much immune system suppression = no immune response, risk for illness

What about too much immune system stimulation? What happens when your immune system is on high alert and you eat an allergenic food at the same time? What happens when you’re given this stimulation repeatedly as a newborn with an IMMATURE immune system that still prioritizes Th2 (inflammatory) response over a Th1 (antibody) response?

That sounds like chronic inflammation. Alike… asthma, chronic ear infections, eczema, and food/seasonal allergies. The neurologic disorders may be a byproduct of heavy metal exposure (we see this with Alzheimers and aluminum in brain tissues as well as brain disorders with Cobalt hips). There is potential here, too!

Newborn immune systems lack memory and are tolerant of antigens for a reason. Babies are born sterile. They are still learning boundaries and creating the flora in their bowels that will become a major component of their immune system for their lifetime. If their body created a Th1 response to every foreign substance, they wouldn’t survive in this world… as we live in symbiosis with the microbes on our skin, in our airway, and in our bowels. Newborns must be colonized with these organisms and build up those systems. How does chronic stimulation of the immune system fit into this matrix?

It does not make sense. Vaccines are given in several doses to “create antibodies” though we know that more are added because they are ineffective in doing that in the first 2-3 doses… probably due to lack of the Th1 response, eh? So, now we give these tiny bodies several doses of adjuvant along with a fragment of a genetic component or microbe without considering what complexes are made between those simultaneous IM exposures, nor do we even study them.

The ACIP, advisory council for immunization practices, does not perform nor require adequate studies! They STATE that fact in these meetings.

So, if you still think that the voice of several thousand concerned mothers and fathers is horsebalogna, your cognitive dissonance is strong. We don’t do this to create drama. We do this to create safer practices for future generations. Mothers and fathers should not have to prove that these practices are harmful. Robust scientific evidence (not industry jargon) should prove interventions to be SAFE before subjecting our most vulnerable populations to them. Concerns should be addressed with valid studies (again, not industry jargon).

Pharmaceutical studies are done on adult populations and medications are recalled for adverse events… I think it is time for a recall, but “biologics” are not considered ‘medications’ for that exact reason…

Are we trading short-term infection for long-term disease?

Are we damaging immune systems by overstimulating them in their development?

When do we start paying attention to the parents that witness their children’s struggle to breathe, eat, and feel well? A normal child should not battle painful skin, constant stomach disturbances, nor frequent episodes of intense ear infections. This was not our (parents born before 1995) reality of childhood and must be questioned.

Shalom, light, and love.

September 26, 2019September 26, 2019

Unschool: Think Outside The Walls

Months ago, when I said “I just want him to slow down and be a kid while his brother does school,” it didn’t sit right with me.

I didn’t want to stifle his interests, but school was a chore for us growing up and homeschool started to feel like a chore also. I mean, learning isn’t fun right?

WRONG. Compulsory education isn’t fun. Spontaneous learning is a blast! Why should we “force” our children to learn in a way that our culture is pressuring when it fails time and again? Is it really valuable information if the individual does not value it?

We know that public school fails us, but why? Newsflash (if you haven’t been around small children lately)!! Children aren’t designed to sit still in a chair for 5+ hours each day, stay quiet, write what we say, and absorb what they are told. That’s not how it works. We can cater to most of their needs… So, why not the most valuable asset a human holds?! The capacity to learn should be cherished, grown, and modeled.

In the United States, we put children in classrooms and pressure them to regurgitate information that a group of people say is valuable. What about living life? Isn’t that valuable, too? Shouldn’t we promote the curiosities of our children and help them explore this world and create a love for life and learning instead of a hatred of school?

In school, we give clear expectations and require children to meet those expectations. In life, there are no expectations… it requires of us to be creative and problem-solve without being told what to do and when to do it. If we want to grow a generation of “innovators” then it is time to ALLOW them to be innovative by nurturing their curiosities, growing their love for learning, and valuing their capacity to do so. Learning should be modeled as a lifelong process, for that is where innovation is found.

It didn’t sit right with me when I said I wanted my second-born to “still be a kid.” because I was stripping that right away from my 5-year-old… who is still a kid.

Shalom, light, and love.

Sites to consider:

June 7, 2019

Separating Education from Indoctrination

I don’t know about you, but I did not want this.

I did not devote years of my life to health, science, healing, and wellness to be attacked, ridiculed, judged, and labeled.

I did not spend thousands of hours studying health sciences to graduate at the top of my class THREE TIMES to be discredited for my experiences and knowledge about these topics.

I did not dedicate countless hours of my time reading government websites, pharmaceutical documents, peer-reviewed studies, and systematic reviews to be ignored, silenced, rejected, and censored.

I did not want this, but my conscience will not let me ignore my experiences.

I was once indoctrinated. I was taught the vaccine schedule and what infections were covered in those vaccines. I was briefly shown herd immunity. I was informed that “vaccines [were] safe and effective.” I had no reason to question otherwise, and if others did so, they lacked the capacity to understand “the science.” That is what I was, and many others are, indoctrinated to believe.

I was not taught about vaccine efficacy rates or failure. Vaccines were not a focus in immunology, though some processes signaled theories of their supposed actions. Vaccine-targeted bacteria and viruses were not thoroughly explored in microbiology alike other microbes. Vaccines were not covered in pharmacology, where adverse events were always attached to studied drugs. Vaccines did not come with adverse events. There was no mention of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and I was not familiar with this passive avenue of compiling population data through post-marketing surveillance as clinical trials are of short duration (some only FOUR days… e.g., Hep B vaccine).

As a foundation, colleges require you to learn concepts without challenging the information. As you dive deeper into the sciences, you find that challenging theory is vital to the fluid nature of science. We still discover new things about the evolving biome/virome and what humans have done to help or hinder the health of populations (e.g., the implications of antibiotic overuse, tobacco science, and the low-fat/high sugar “heart health” diet in light of the obesity crisis… just to name a few). We see changes in human health and must consider contributing factors to find solutions. Current research in epigenetics, the gut-brain connection, and functional medicine are challenging long-held theories surrounding health and wellness.

I have made up for gaps in school. I have explored the evidence-based practice, how to read scientific studies, how to check for bias, and have challenged mainstream ideas in the classroom with success. I have pulled the studies from databases and notice a trend. Glowing reports of vaccine efficacy always contain a bias as they are usually funded by vaccine manufacturers and government agencies that promote them. Those researchers that challenge the data and ask the hard questions rarely have a government funding source, are never tied to the pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccines, and declare no conflicts of interest. Funny how that works, eh?

That being said, we all have biases that need worked through. Our experiences, including formal education, can create these biases. We can be taught to hold certain entities in high regard, but we must be careful not to be blinded to their failures or misrepresentation of data. We must hold them accountable.

I do not think that there is a conspiracy surrounding the childhood vaccination program. I do not believe vaccine manufacturers intended to injure children. At the same time, we have got to recognize that vaccine manufacturers are the same companies that create other pharmaceuticals. If you know anything about FDA regulation and drug testing, you know that there is a price, harm still occurs after the screening of new drugs, and there are regular recalls. You know that medical journals are filled with shady science promoting new medications that are funded by the companies producing those drugs. The clinical trials involved in the manufacturing of vaccines are lesser than those demanded of the FDA for prescribed medications. Fact-Check this; clinical trials are included in manufacturing inserts for vaccines that are required by law.

My take on these issues is that an unintentional loophole was created with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 that freed manufacturers from liability and guaranteed a market for vaccines that are recommended for the U. S. Vaccine Schedule. When your vaccine is approved for the schedule, you have secured revenue. The fiscal incentive for more vaccines is high in a developed country.

In 1983, there were seven total vaccine doses. In 2019, there are over 70 throughout childhood, with 22 doses concentrated in the first 12-15 months of life in the U.S. We also have an embarrassing infant (0-12 month) mortality rate as compared to other developed AND developing nations (we rank in the 50s)!

InfantMortalityCountries — List of countries that have LOWER infant death rates than the U. S.

According to the most recent data, the 4th leading cause of death in the first year is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). SIDS is unexplained death that is not the result of congenital anomalies, maternal/pregnancy complications, or gestation-related causes. If we remove congenital, maternal, pregnancy, gestation from the death table, SIDS will rank #1! Sadly, we spend next to nothing on SIDS research as compared to vaccine spending. On top of that, spending on SIDS research was slashed by almost half from 2017 to 2018! Governments are the largest funding source for R&D, and the largest investment category worldwide is Vaccine Research and Development. The CDC claims vaccines aren’t the cause of SIDS; however, SIDS has no explained cause so that statement is a fallacy. Why would the CDC go against their own vaccine recommendations? They wouldn’t. That is why all their supporting SIDS studies contain glaring conflicts of interest (as they are generated internally), not to mention: outdated.

Where your money goes, there lie your interests. Infant mortality in the U.S. is not the result of infectious diseases, yet that is where the money is spent. We have “no idea” why infants suddenly die, yet we aren’t interested in finding out why? Every year, roughly 2,500 babies born in the U.S. die before age one for unknown causes when you remove strangulation/suffocation from the data. Scientific processes allow people to find out the cause of death for a mummy buried over 4,000 years ago, but we cannot do the same for a baby that dies today. Let that sink in.

I do not think there is a conspiracy, but I do believe that these health agencies feel they have gone too far to turn back. They have sold us to their dogma of “vaccines are safe and effective” that is slathered all over government websites. If the childhood vaccine program fails, several people lose trust in government programs that seek to do some good. The challenge is identifying when data is misrepresented due to strong biases. It takes a level of commitment and discomfort (cognitive dissonance) when you seek education and put your biases aside. There is a lot on the line when you challenge the science of vaccines, but without conflict there cannot be progress. We have conflict because we demand progress. Never stop demanding progress.

Shalom, light, and love.

Sites to Consider:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
https://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx
https://www.who.int/research-observatory/monitoring/inputs/neglected_diseases_source/en/
https://www.cdc.gov/sids/data.htm

March 7, 2019March 7, 2019

Vaccine Studies… “the science is settled” and the evidence cannot be denied

There is nothing more important than protecting our population, especially the most vulnerable, from risks. If there is a risk, there must be a choice. Vaccines (lab-created biologics) are not without their risks. The statement “Vaccines are safe and effective” is simply unfounded. Protection of informed consent is essential in a free society, but that is threatened today.

Independent bodies such as the Cochrane Collaboration, which is considered Level I hierarchy of medical evidence, are unable to determine if vaccination prevents primary disease and reports safety issues. This is a lot of information, so it is broken down by the vaccine. I have thoroughly covered measles and chickenpox, so they are not included in this post. You can find those here and here. Quotes below are directly obtained from studies.

COMBO VACCINES

In 2012, Bar-On, Goldberg, Hellman, & Leibovici evaluated DTP-HBV and HIB vaccines. Overall, they reported “Data for the primary outcome (prevention of disease) were lacking” and reported increased bias within performed studies. There was a reassessment of this in 2017, and those authors were unable to perform the study.

HEPATITIS B

Mathew, El Dib, Mathew, Boxall, & Brok evaluated Hepatitis B in 2009 and stated “Twelve trials were eligible. All had high risk of bias and reporting was inconsistent.” They went on further to state:

“In people not previously exposed to hepatitis B, vaccination has unclear effect on the risk of developing infection, as compared to no vaccination. The risk of lacking protective antibody levels as well as serious and non-serious adverse events appear comparable among recipients and non-recipients of hepatitis B vaccine.”

A review evaluating Hepatitis B booster vaccination conducted in 2016 reported, “There were no eligible randomised clinical trials fulﬁlling the inclusion criteria of this review.”

In 2017, Eke, Eleje, Eke, Xia, & Liu performed a study evaluating the Hepatitis B vaccine on newborns of seropositive women, and they stated:

“Due to very low to low quality evidence found in this review, we are uncertain of the effect of beneﬁt of antenatal HBIG administration to the HBV-infected mothers on newborn outcomes, such as HBsAg, HBV-DNA, and HBeAg compared with no intervention. The results of the effects of HBIG on HBsAg and HBeAg are surrogate outcomes (raising risk of indirectness), and we need to be critical while interpreting the ﬁndings. We found no data on newborn mortality or maternal mortality or both, or other serious adverse events. Well-designed randomised clinical trials are needed to determine the beneﬁts and harms of HBIG versus placebo in prevention of MTCT of HBV.”

TETANUS AND PERTUSSIS

In 2014, Zhang, Prietsch, Axelsson, & Halperin reported in a tetanus study that:

“Ethical barriers to the inclusion of a placebo group, combined with the evidence that whole-cell vaccines are not uniformly effective, will create problems for future efﬁcacy studies. Such studies will need to include a self-selected, non-immunised and potentially biased control group, in order to provide an estimate of absolute vaccine efﬁcacy. Further, analyses of the data from existing placebo-controlled studies, with the aim of determining characteristics of participants and their environment which affect vaccine efﬁcacy, will permit future studies to improve these estimates of absolute efﬁcacy by adjusting for such factors.

Finally, the lack of a laboratory correlate of efﬁcacy means that the testing of new acellular pertussis vaccines currently requires prolonged and expensive clinical trials. Research into determining such a laboratory correlate should be a priority.”

In 2015, Demicheli, Barale, & Rivetti evaluated the studies on effects of TDaP vaccines in pregnant women concluding, “For our primary outcomes, there was no high-quality evidence according to GRADE assessments.” They went on to elaborate on two chosen trials and said:

“One study (1182 infants) assessed the effectiveness of tetanus toxoid in comparison with inﬂuenza vaccine in preventing neonatal tetanus deaths.

Another study, involving 8641 children, assessed the effectiveness of tetanus-diphtheria toxoid in comparison with cholera toxoid in preventing neonatal mortality after one or two doses.”

These two studies qualified to be evaluated, and both studies do not have true saline-placebo controls as the ‘placebo arm’ was administered a vaccine including adjuvanted components.

PNEUMOCOCCAL

In 2012, review by Moberley, Holden, Tatham, & Andrews on a Pneumococcal Pneumonia Vaccine (PPV) they report:

“PPV was not associated with substantial reductions in all-cause mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09; random-effects model, I2 statistic = 69%). Vaccine efﬁcacy against primary outcomes appeared poorer in adults with chronic illness. Non-RCTs provided evidence for protection against IPD in populations for whom the vaccine is currently utilised (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.61; random-effects model, I2 statistic = 31%). This review did not consider adverse events as it was outside the scope of the review.”

In a 2015 review of evidence for the use of pneumococcal vaccines in pregnancy, Chaithongwongwatthana, Yamasmit, Limpongsanurak, Lumbiganon, & Tolosa reports:

“The overall quality of evidence is low for primary outcomes. Most outcomes had wide conﬁdence intervals crossing the line of no effect, and most of the included trials had small numbers of participants and few events which led to downgrading evidence for imprecision of ﬁndings.

There is insufﬁcient evidence to assess whether pneumococcal vaccination during pregnancy could reduce infant infections.”

ROTAVIRUS

In the 2010 review by Soares-Weiser, Goldberg, Tamimi, Leibovici, & Pitan on rotavirus in preventing diarrhea, the study reported:

“Evidence about safety, and about mortality or prevention of severe outcomes, is scarce and inconclusive… Rotavirus vaccines can prevent diarrhoea caused by rotavirus, but we are still not clear about safety and whether they prevent deaths.”

Because the vaccine evaluated in the above study was taken off the market due to intussusception, there was an updated review conducted in 2012. Soares-Weiser, MacLehose, Bergman, Ben-Aharon, Nagpal, Goldberg, Pitan, & Cunliffe conclude:

“Serious adverse events were reported in 4565 out of 99,438 children vaccinated with RV1 and in 1884 out of 78,226 children vaccinated with RV5. Fifty-eight cases of intussusception were reported in 97,246 children after RV1 vaccination, and 34 cases in 81,459 children after RV5 vaccination.

The vaccine efﬁcacy is lower in high-mortality countries; however, due to the higher burden of disease, the absolute beneﬁt is higher in these settings. No increased risk of serious adverse events including intussusception was detected, but post-introduction surveillance studies are required to detect rare events associated with vaccination.

Of the 41 RCTs analysed in this review, 25 (61%) reported an adequate generation of allocation sequence, while the method of assignment was unclear in the remaining studies. The methods used to conceal allocation were considered adequate in 19 trials (46%), and unclear in the remaining studies.

Incomplete outcome data was adequately addressed in 28 studies (68%), unclear in 12 studies, and was not addressed adequately in one study. Sixteen trials were free from selective reporting bias, eight were not, and the remaining trials were unclear. Most trials were sponsored by the industry and it was not possible to assess if they were free of other biases; two recent trials performed in Africa were considered free from other biases.”

INFLUENZA

In 2018, Jefferson, Rivetti, Di Pietrantonj, and Demicheli reported in an influenza vaccine study in healthy children that, “Only a few studies were well designed and conducted, and the impact of studies at high risk of bias varied across the outcomes evaluated.”

The 2018 study on influenza vaccination in adults conducted by Demicheli, Jefferson, Ferroni, Rivetti, & Di Pietrantonj, they report:

“We found 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 adults. We were unable to determine the impact of bias on about 70% of the included studies due to insufficient reporting of details. Around 15% of the included studies were well designed and conducted. We focused on reporting of results from 25 studies that looked at inactivated vaccines. Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case, and 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost.

Fifteen included RCTs were industry funded (29%).”

In the 2018 study performed by Demicheli, Jefferson, Di Pietrantonj, Ferroni, Thorning, Thomas, & Rivetti regarding influenza vaccination in older adults, they concluded:

“The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and ILI with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65years or older. Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly.”

There you have it! Of the available studies about vaccines, this is the available analysis…

Lack of
Limited by bias
Low-quality
Low-certainty
Uncertain
High-risk of bias
Inconclusive
Insufficient

Don’t believe me? Go have a look for yourself. These evaluations were made by medical doctors of an independent, non-profit organization that are free from conflicts of interest. This demonstrates that there is no evidence of safety, nor efficacy, of these vaccines. Further, evaluating the use of several vaccines at the same time is absent from the literature. We need to create an independent council that can evaluate the overall safety of the childhood vaccine schedule. We also need the ability to evaluate vaccines for all ages, as mandatory vaccine laws are entertained in legislative houses today.

The good news is that the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group has proposed a systematic review on the use of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines this year (2019). This is going to be a monumental study that has implications for the entire vaccine schedule as most vaccines contain aluminum adjuvants. I eagerly await the results.

HEAR THIS WELL: Your rights to medical freedom and informed consent are being threatened TODAY. These are current vaccinations that are being tested.

Maybe you don’t care about the childhood vaccine schedule. Maybe you don’t have children and never plan to do so. Maybe you believe in your heart of hearts that vaccines are for the greater good. That is fine. That is YOUR choice (for now). However, if a mandatory vaccination law is passed, there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines that are authorized to be injected into YOU, an adult.

What happens if it is no longer your choice? What happens when Stage 4 of the clinical trial (use in populations and post-marketing studies) determines that a new vaccine causes harm and you did not have a choice? Well, by that point it does not matter. You have NO CONTROL over your health. You have NO CONTROL over what goes into your body at the discretion of pharmaceutical companies and government agencies. Then what? Public health officials can essentially go door-to-door to mass vaccinate communities. Is this what you want? Because if you do not stand up now, this is what you will get. It has been done before and it can be done again.

Your voice must be heard. Informed consent must be protected. A law mandating a medical intervention eliminates informed consent, as you no longer have the choice and therefore do not need to know the risks. Last year (2018), HEPLISAV-B was approved for the adult vaccination schedule. Just look up ACIP vote last year on this issue and how exactly they voted this vaccine through, here is one link. Certainly, that brings you to pause. Still feel like lining up for the future HIV vaccine?

Above all, we need to focus on safety. Even if you are a proponent for mandatory vaccines, you should be able to prove their safety and efficacy. You should be 100% confident in what an unbiased safety council will find when evaluating these biologics. So why not prove it? This easily accessed petition will help squander this debate.

You can find state-specific information on vaccine laws here. But in the meantime, #IDoNotConsent. A society that touts personal liberty should be free from coercion. Informed consent, body autonomy, individualized care, and evidence-based practice are cornerstones to today’s medical practice; without these things, we can expect higher profits for pharmaceutical/medical technology and insurance companies, higher risks, and worsening health outcomes. Stand up for yourself (and future generations), before you’re forced to sit down and blindly accept medical interventions.

Shalom, Light, and Love.

Sites To Consider:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/about-cdsr
https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/
https://nvicadvocacy.org/members/Home.aspx
https://www.nvic.org/
https://www.learntherisk.org/
https://www.who.int/immunization/research/vaccine_pipeline_tracker_spreadsheet/en/
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/presidential-appointment-independent-vaccine-safety-commission

Eke, A. C., Eleje G.U., Eke, U.A., Xia Y., & Liu J. (2017). Hepatitis B immunoglobulin during pregnancy for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Bar-On, E. S., Goldberg, E., Hellman, S., & Leibovici, L. (2012). Combined DTP-HBV-HIB vaccine versus separately administered DTP-HBV and HIB vaccines for primary prevention of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae B (HIB). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4).

Chaithongwongwatthana, S., Yamasmit, W., Limpongsanurak, S., Lumbiganon, P., Tolosa, J. E. (2015). Pneumococcal vaccination during pregnancy for preventing infant infection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1).

Demicheli, V., Barale, A., & Rivetti, A. (2015). Vaccines for women for preventing neonatal tetanus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (7).

Demicheli, V., Jefferson, T., Ferroni, E., Rivetti, A., & Di Pietrantonj, C. (2018). Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Demicheli, V., Jefferson, T., Di Pietrantonj, C., Ferroni, E., Thorning, S., Thomas, R. E., & Rivetti, A. (2018). Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Jefferson, T., Rivetti, A., Di Pietrantonj, C., & Demicheli, V. (2018). Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Mathew, J. L., El Dib, R., Mathew, P.J., Boxall, E.H., & Brok, J. (2009). Hepatitis B immunisation in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis B or with unknown exposure status. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1).

Moberley, S., Holden, J., Tatham, D. P., Andrews, R.M. (2012). Vaccines for preventing pneumococcal infection in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1).

Soares-Weiser, K., Goldberg, E., Tamimi, G., Leibovici, L., & Pitan, F. (2010). Rotavirus vaccine for preventing diarrhoea. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9).

Soares-Weiser, K., MacLehose, H., Bergman, H., Ben-Aharon, I., Nagpal, S., Goldberg, E., Pitan, F., & Cunliffe, N. (2012). Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (11).

Zhang, L., Prietsch, S. O. M., Axelsson, I., & Halperin, S. A. (2014). Acellular vaccines for preventing whooping cough in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9).