By Jon Rappoport
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them…”
By Jon Rappoport
By Barbara Loe Fisher
The Vaccine Culture War is heating up.1 Ground zero is America, Europe and other economically developed countries, where the pharmaceutical industrial complex is raising an iron fist to protect multibillion-dollar profits by disempowering the people.2,3,4,5,6,7,8
In America, professors and doctors in academia and government are profiling parents by class and race to shame and discredit those challenging vaccine orthodoxy. Elite members of the highest paid professions in our society are using academic journals and mainstream media to openly preach fear, hate, prejudice and discrimination against people who disagree with them about vaccination.
“When it comes to vaccines, rich parents get away with child neglect,” the headline in The Washington Post proclaimed on May 10, 2017. The OpEd was written by Linda C. Fentiman, a Pace University law professor promoting criminal prosecution of mothers whose children are not vaccinated.9
She alleged that state legislatures are accommodating “wealthy” mothers by allowing exemptions in vaccine laws, while poor pregnant women have “faced charges of criminal child abuse” and imprisonment for “failing to deliver adequate nutrition or delivering drugs via their breast milk.”
She suggested that ALL mothers who don’t vaccinate their children are criminals and should be punished — “regardless of socioeconomic status” — because vaccination is a “collective obligation” and “the science on the efficacy and safety of vaccines is clear.”
That “punish the mothers” OpEd was preceded by a May 8 Boston Herald editorial revealing just how far the persecution of people advocating for vaccine safety and informed consent has gone. The Boston Herald editorial staff called for the execution of individuals who exercise free speech about vaccine risks and failures.
As in, it should be “a hanging offense” to inform parents (especially, to inform parents in “immigrant communities”) that vaccines carry an unpredictable risk of injury or death and often fail to work as advertised.10
Nobody should be surprised. Prejudice and discrimination against groups of people, whether because of the color of their skin, their gender, how they dress, what they eat, where they live, their religious beliefs, their cultural values and political opinions — or simply because they choose to stay healthy in a different way — is always a slippery slope once it is allowed to gain a foothold in society.
In 2011, Dr. Gregory Poland, a University of Minnesota professor of medicine and vaccine developer at Mayo Clinic,11,12 profiled parents concerned about vaccine risks in the New England Journal of Medicine.
He said, “Antivaccinationists tend toward complete distrust of government and manufacturers, conspiratorial thinking, denialism, low cognitive complexity in thinking patterns, reasoning flaws and a habit of substituting anecdotes for data.” Then he used a death image to invoke a thinly veiled threat. He asked, “What can we do to hasten the funeral of antivaccination campaigns?”13
Trash talk has become the weapon of choice for a select group of professors and doctors using academic journals and mainstream media to humiliate and bully people who disagree with them about the science, policy, law and ethics of vaccination.
In the 21st century, it has been going on in earnest since about 2004 when Centers for Disease Control (CDC) officials kicked off the Vaccine Culture War by asking this question in the Journal of Pediatrics: “Children Who Have Received No Vaccines: Who Are They and Where Do They Live?”14 The CDC study authors played with the words “undervaccinated” and “unvaccinated” so mothers could be profiled by class and race. They said:
“Undervaccinated children tend to be black, to have a younger mother who was not married and did not have a college degree, to live in a household near the poverty level, and to live in a central city.
Unvaccinated children tended to be white, to have a mother who was married and had a college degree, to live in a household with an annual income exceeding $75,000 and to have parents who expressed concerns regarding the safety of vaccines and indicated that medical doctors have little influence over vaccination decisions for their children.”
There it was, the uncomfortable truth that it is college educated, financially stable middle class mothers independently evaluating the benefits and risks of vaccination rather than blindly trusting and relying on someone else to do their thinking for them.
Although the CDC’s 2004 profiling study drew lines between mothers based on race and socio-economic class, there was no discussion of the distinct possibility that those lines would disappear if ALL mothers were financially stable, able to access full information about vaccination, and were truly free to make voluntary vaccine decisions without being punished for the decision they make.
Your skin doesn’t have to be a certain color and you don’t have to belong to a certain socioeconomic class — or have a college degree — to figure out that you are not being told the whole truth about risks that doctors insist your child must take. All you have to do is vaccinate your healthy child and witness that child have symptoms of severe vaccine reactions and either die or become a totally different child physically, mentally and emotionally.
For more than a decade, professors at Johns Hopkins and Emory universities have published articles profiling parents making independent vaccine choices for their children for the purpose of creating a public narrative that delegitimizes vaccine exemptions and the human right to exercise freedom of thought, conscience, religious belief and informed consent to vaccine risk taking.15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24
In 2012 these esteemed professors also put the squeeze on pediatricians to discourage them from exercising professional judgment and conscience when giving children medical vaccine exemptions,25,26 directing them to strictly conform to narrow vaccine contraindications approved by the CDC, which exclude 99.99 percent of children from qualifying for a medical exemption.27,28,29
Since doctors cannot predict who will be harmed by vaccination,30,31 this kind of cruel utilitarian public health policy selects an unknown number of children, who are biologically vulnerable to being harmed by vaccines, for sacrifice. When doctors with big titles in government and academia put a target on the backs of parents and doctors opposing inhumane one-size-fits-all public health policies and laws, it gives a green light for legislators to do the same thing.
In 2012, California pediatrician politician Richard Pan lobbied to eliminate the personal belief vaccine exemption for children to attend school. He told The Associated Press that, “In private schools, these are people who have money, who are upper middle-class, and they are going on the internet and seeing information and misinformation.”32,33
In 2013, the flames of prejudice were fanned by an online publication profiling parents in a San Francisco community and labeling them “vaccine deniers.”34
The parents were described as “wealthy, educated, liberal leaning” and often working in “technology, law and other white collar professions that demand critical thinking skills,” who put their children at risk by feeding them non-GMO organic food, taking them to holistic doctors, and paying $20,000 a year to send them to private schools where self-reliance, independence and critical thinking are taught.
So, by 2015, the narrative about parents being stupid and crazy for questioning the safety of vaccines had morphed into one profiling parents by class and race. The New York Times had no problem running the headline, “Rich, White and Refusing Vaccinations.”35
And when a measles outbreak popped up in 2015 at Disneyland, it didn’t matter that only 2.5 percent of California children were attending kindergarten with a personal belief vaccine exemption.36
It was an opportunity for the pharmaceutical industrial complex to create a media hate fest that turned into a competition for who could suggest the most egregious violations of civil liberties and the nastiest kinds of punishment for parents declining to give their children every one of the 69 doses of 16 vaccines on the CDC’s poorly studied childhood vaccine schedule.37,38,39
An Arizona State University magazine editor wrote, “Shouldn’t we know where they live? Every single exemption request should be reviewed in a public meeting and approved by a public body (like a city council or school board). And if the exemption is approved, basic information — the parent’s name, address and the vaccinations declined — should be available on the internet via a publicly maintained registry.”40
Professors at major universities suggested the government should impose a tax on unvaccinated people,41 suspend free speech about vaccination,42 and deny elected representatives public office and strip doctors of their medical licenses if they talk bad about vaccines.43A science writer urged Americans to turn on each other and conduct a “concerted campaign of person-to-person shaming and shunning.”44
A USA Today OpEd stated flatly: “Parents who do not vaccinate their children should go to jail.”45 By the end of 2015, the California legislature had narrowly voted to eliminate the personal belief vaccine exemption, while denying medical care to the children of parents making vaccine choices had become standard behavior in pediatric offices across the country.46,47
In 2016, the profiling of vaccine hesitant parents based on race and class had become so politically correct in America that two Michigan pediatricians felt comfortable describing them this way: “These parents almost always come from privilege, and they are almost never punished for their actions … they are by and large white, educated and affluent.”48
By 2017, Peter Hotez, a Baylor University professor of medicine and vaccine developer,49,50 slapped the “high educational attainment and socioeconomic status” label on parents defending vaccine freedom of choice. In Scientific American magazine, he called on the U.S. government and G-20 nations to take steps to “snuff out” the “American anti-vaccine movement.”51 To “snuff out” means to “crush or kill.”52
It is no wonder the Boston Herald editorial staff did not hesitate to suggest that the hangman’s noose was the kind of punishment that these “white, educated and affluent” parents deserved.53 Apparently, you get a free pass to engage in race and class baiting if you have M.D., Ph.D. or J.D. written after your name and or bang the drum loudly for forced vaccination, suggesting that those who refuse to believe get a taste of the whip.
History does reveal that it is much easier to wage a reign of terror when the gallows and guillotine in the public square are used to teach unbelievers a lesson. Clearly, the doctors and professors demanding that we roll up our children’s sleeves to prove we are willing to take one for the team are getting nervous. They know that more than 90 percent of American parents are asking pediatricians questions about vaccine safety and want to make voluntary vaccine decisions for their children.54
Wealthy vaccine developers, like pediatrician and professor of vaccinology Dr. Paul Offit,55,56,57 are lobbying to eliminate all vaccine exemptions that have not been approved by doctors, so parents are legally prohibited from exercising freedom of thought and conscience when making health care decisions for their children.58,59,60
Offit believes that children can safely receive 10,000 vaccines at once61 and has contempt for parents who do not agree with him about that. He said, “They’re people who believe they can know anything and know as much as their doctor — if not more — by simply studying it, reading about it.”62
Offit is a member of the highest paid profession in America — medical doctors63,64 — and he also belongs to an elite academic community where professors of medicine at some universities are paid $3 to $4 million per year,65 which is comparable to pharmaceutical company salaries. In 2011, the annual salary for an M.D. vice president at Merck was $6 million.66
There are about 750,000 medical doctors working in the U.S. and, although currently the top five medical specialties earn an average $400,000 to half a million dollars per year, the average annual income for most doctors is between $190,000 and $240,000, which is more than six times the U.S. median income of about $36,000 and four times the U.S. household median income of $56,000.67,68,69
There are about 33,000 medical doctors working for the federal government, and they are paid an average $206,000 per year.70 Full professors at colleges and universities are paid on average between $140,000 and $220,000,71,72 but some are paid millions.73
While doctors and professors certainly have the legal right to make a lot of money, it does not give them the moral right to dictate what other people in society can value, think, believe, say or do. Their vicious attacks on people who disagree with them about health and vaccination is an attack on basic human rights that protect all people, rich and poor, and of every race in every country, against tyranny.
Class and race baiting has no place in the public conversation about vaccination and there should be no safe harbor for those who engage in it. Until laws are passed limiting the authority of medical doctors using the heel of boot of the state to violate human rights, the people’s health and freedom will be in danger. Learn more about vaccination and health within NVIC.org.
[Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? This is exactly what we’re experiencing in our society today. Big Pharma, the AMA and factions of our government have been implementing Agenda 21 for decades, unbeknownst to the masses. TMR]
by Jon Rappoport – August 25, 2017
In my work-in-progress, The Underground, here is what I wrote about Google: “They’re clever, I’ll give them that. They’re saying you can search them for any information in the world, but they’re really searching you.”
Google has decided it’s not doing enough to lead us into a better world. So now it’s going to enter the field of psychiatry.
Engadget.com: Google is “offering a medically validated, anonymous screening questionnaire for clinical depression if you search for information on the condition. This won’t definitively indicate that you’re clinically depressed, to be clear, but it will give you useful information you can take to a doctor.”
“Google and others are determined to fight fake news, and they know that the consequences of false or incomplete medical information could be serious. If you need help, they want to be sure you get the appropriate support.”
Let’s see if I can help Google fight false or incomplete medical information.
For example, be aware that there is no defining lab test for clinical depression.
No blood test, no urine test, no saliva test, no brain scan, no genetic assay.
Committees of psychiatrists sit down and look at unscientific menus of human behavior, lump certain behaviors together, and arbitrarily label them “clinical depression.”
Therefore, any Google questionnaire is simply going to feed into that trough of pseudoscience. That’s all.
Then, of course, there are the drugs that come with a diagnosis of depression. Drugs like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. I’ll help Google fight “incomplete medical information” in this area as well.
In 2004, Dr. Peter Breggin, eminent psychiatrist, expert witness in court trials, and author of Toxic Psychiatry, wrote the following about these drugs. I suggest paying close attention:
“On March 22  the FDA issued an extraordinary ‘Public Health Advisory’ that cautioned about the risks associated with the whole new generation of antidepressants including Prozac and its knock offs, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa, and Lexapro, as well as Wellbutrin, Effexor, Serzone, and Remeron. The warning followed a public hearing where dozens of family members and victims testified about suicide and violence committed by individuals taking these medications.”
“…In the debate over drug-induced suicide, little attention has been given to the FDA’s additional warning that certain behaviors are ‘known to be associated with these drugs’ including ‘anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, impulsivity, akathisia (severe restlessness), hypomania, and mania’.”
“From agitation and hostility to impulsivity and mania, the FDA’s litany of antidepressant-induced behaviors is identical to that of PCP, methamphetamine and cocaine—drugs known to cause aggression and violence. These older stimulants and most of the newer antidepressants cause similar effects as a result of their impact on a neurotransmitter in the brain called serotonin.”
“For more than a decade, I have documented in books and scientific reports how this stimulation or activation profile can lead to out-of-control behavior, including violence…”
“As a psychiatrist and as a medical expert, I have examined dozens of cases of individuals who have committed suicide or violent crimes while under the influence of the newer antidepressants such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox and Celexa. In June in South Carolina, Christopher Pittman will go on trial for shooting his grandparents to death while they slept. Chris was twelve when his family doctor started him on Zoloft. Three weeks later the doctor doubled his dose and one week later Chris committed the violent acts. In other cases, a fourteen-year-old girl on Prozac fired a pistol pointblank at a friend but the gun failed to go off, and a teenage boy on Zoloft beat to death an elderly woman who complained to him about his loud music. A greater number of cases involve adults who lost control of themselves while taking antidepressants. In at least two cases judges have found individuals not guilty on the basis of involuntary intoxication with psychiatric drugs and other cases have resulted in reduced charges, lesser convictions, or shortened sentences.”
“The FDA includes mania in its list of known antidepressant effects. Manic individuals can become violent, especially when they are thwarted, and they can also ‘crash’ into depression and suicidal states. They can carry out elaborate but grandiose and doomed plans. One clinical trial showed a rate of 6% manic reactions…on Prozac. None developed mania on a sugar pill [placebo]. Even in short-term clinical trials, 1% or more of depressed adults develop mania compared to a small fraction on the sugar pill.”
“Unfortunately, there are also risks involved with stopping antidepressants. Many can cause withdrawal reactions that last days and sometimes longer, causing some patients to feel depressed, suicidal or even violent. Stopping antidepressants should be done carefully and with experienced clinical supervision.”
“…the FDA and the medical profession must forthrightly educate potential patients and the public about the sometimes life-threatening risks associated with the use of antidepressant medications.”
Here is the kicker. Google can do anything it wants to with the information in this article, the one you’re now reading. It can lower its ranking.
Google can control the flow of information.
Given that Google has that kind of power, I strongly suggest caution when it touts its own “depression questionnaire.”
It’s not only rigging the system, it is the system.
Many people are unaware that in 1986 Congress gave the U.S. vaccine industry a shield from product liability that is unlike any other in existence. In most cases, if a pharmaceutical product injures or kills a person, the manufacturer of that product can be held financially accountable in a civil court of law. With vaccines, however, this is not the case.
In the U.S., there is a federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) that Congress created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
The VICP was created 30 years ago as an administrative alternative to a lawsuit when federally licensed vaccines recommended for children cause injury or death. Federal compensation was supposed to be awarded when there was no other biologically plausible explanation for the vaccine-related injury or death, and plaintiffs denied federal compensation or offered too little were supposed to be able to access civil courts.
However, in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled that federally licensed vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” and completely removed liability from the vaccine industry — even if it could be proven that a manufacturer had the ability to make the vaccine less reactive.
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington handles vaccine injury and death cases contested by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice in what has become known as “vaccine court.” The federal VICP compensates vaccine victims through a federal trust fund that collects a surcharge on every dose of vaccine purchased and administered, which means that vaccine manufacturers pay nothing into the vaccine injury trust fund even though they have no product liability.
To add insult to injury, government agencies and the U.S. Court of Claims deny federal compensation to the majority of vaccine-injured plaintiffs. As noted by the National Vaccine Information Center’s Barbara Loe Fisher at the Revolution for Truth Rally earlier this year:
“The $3.6 billion in federal vaccine injury compensation that has been awarded to more than 5,000 vaccine victims since 1988 doesn’t begin to pay for the damage done; not when two out of three claims are denied.”
A recent ruling by the highest court of the European Union, however, could change the vaccine injury compensation landscape — in Europe, at least — and the ruling has the vaccine industry up in arms over potentially being held financially accountable in European civil courts for illnesses and injuries caused by government recommended and mandated vaccines.
In many vaccine injury cases, it can be difficult if not impossible to prove cause and effect and directly link a related injury with the vaccine, in part because such injuries may occur days, weeks or months later and also because the quality and quantity of vaccine safety studies is extremely poor. Vaccine companies and government health agencies have refused to conduct methodologically sound research into how and why vaccines cause harm and who is biologically at greater risk for being harmed.
In 2012, the Institute of Medicine (IOM), recently renamed Health and Medicine Division of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), appointed a physician committee to review over 1,000 vaccine studies on eight vaccines routinely administered to children. For more than 100 adverse health outcomes reported following vaccination, IOM was unable to determine whether or not the vaccines caused a commonly reported brain or immune system disorder.1
In short, the quality and quantity of the scientific evidence related to a wide range of brain and immune system disorders was insufficient to make a conclusion about whether or not a vaccine causes those disorders in a previously healthy person or a person biologically susceptible to vaccine harm.
So the IOM committee was unable to confirm or deny causation for most reported poor health outcomes, such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, learning disabilities and autism, following receipt of certain vaccines. This does not exonerate vaccines as being safe, but rather highlights the challenges faced when a person attempts to prove a causative link between a vaccine they’ve received and a related illness or injury.
It makes common sense that the circumstances surrounding a vaccine-related illness — such as how soon reaction symptoms began following vaccine administration, or whether the person had suffered a previous vaccine reaction or was sick at the time of vaccination and so on — would be essential pieces of evidence to consider in determining probable cause. However, few civil courts have taken this kind of clinical and circumstantial evidence seriously in vaccine injury lawsuits.
This was the case with a man living in France, whose vaccine injury case is still ongoing. The man developed multiple sclerosis after receiving three doses of hepatitis B vaccine, and he and his family believe the debilitating chronic disease was caused by the vaccination. Much of the case was based on circumstantial evidence including the timing of the onset of disease in relation to vaccination.
A lower French court ruled that the hepatitis B vaccination was the probable cause of the man’s multiple sclerosis, but that lower court decision was subsequently overturned because of a lack of scientific consensus that hepatitis B vaccine causes multiple sclerosis. Eventually, the courts needed to decide what types of evidence were admissible in the case, which brought it before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the highest court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).2
The ECJ ruled that “serious, specific and consistent” circumstantial evidence may be considered in vaccine injury cases, prompting a barrage of criticism from the pharmaceutical industry, doctors, public health officials and the media that it would “open the floodgates” for frivolous vaccine injury lawsuits. In Nature magazine, however, Alex Stein, a law expert at the Brooklyn Law School in New York says this is not the case:3
“The court emphasized that liability claims for vaccine harm must be considered on a case-by-case basis. It also ruled that the burden of proof remained on plaintiffs (the man’s family, in this case) and that courts must consider relevant evidence from medical research.
These caveats are important, says … Stein … ‘Under this framework, credible medical evidence showing that the vaccine is safe will win the case,’ he says. ‘Those who say that the ECJ decision has opened a floodgate for multiple vaccine liability suits are therefore mistaken.'”
Stein continued that the ruling may, in fact, allow for justice to be fairly served, noting, “If courts were to use scientific methods of proof in all cases in which they must determine disputed facts, they would hardly be able to make decisions and to deliver timely justice to people. Justice is generally best served when courts are free to admit whatever relevant evidence they wish and judge it on its own merits along with the rest.”4
Indeed, the EU ruling will allow for important and pertinent evidence to be considered in vaccine injury cases to conclude “the administering of the vaccine is the most plausible explanation,” including the following:5
•The time between a vaccine’s administration and the onset of a disease
•An individual’s previous state of health
•A lack of any family history of the disease
•A significant number of reported cases of the disease occurring following vaccination
It’s incredibly important for vaccine makers to be held accountable for dangerous or ineffective products in civil court. As we continue to see, there are more questions than answers when it comes to vaccine safety and repercussions to human immunity and overall health. The case of federally recommended annual flu shots is one such example in which reactive and often ineffective vaccines continue to be foisted on a vulnerable population, in this case the elderly.
As recently as February 2017, U.S health officials boasted that this season’s influenza vaccine was a “good match,” even though the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) described the vaccine as having a 48 percent effectiveness rate, which means the vaccine was effective in preventing disease only 48 percent of the time.
For the past decade, the seasonal influenza vaccine’s effectiveness has been only 50 percent to 60 percent effective.6 The news that this year’s influenza vaccine was a “good match” probably prompted more seniors to get one of the 145 million doses of flu vaccine shipped to doctors’ offices and public health clinics.7
By June 2017, however, the CDC’s tune had changed. The vaccine actually did a poor job of protecting the elderly, with a low 42 percent effectiveness rate overall in preventing illness severe enough to cause someone to visit a doctor. Meanwhile, among the 65 and over crowd — who are at higher risk for influenza complications — as well as those aged 18 to 49, the flu shot “had no clear effect.”8 In other words, it was useless.
Every vaccine carries a risk of injury or death that can be greater for some people, and the potential risk of suffering flu vaccinecomplications that result in a permanent disability such as paralysis from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) is a risk you need to take into account each time you get a flu shot. While death and complete disability from influenza vaccine complications may be rare, severe complications and death from seasonal influenza itself are also relatively rare, especially for individuals with healthy immune systems.
So it is wise to weigh the risk of suffering a debilitating side effect from a flu shot relative to the more likely potential of spending a week in bed recovering from a bout with influenza. Most of the deaths attributed to influenza are actually due to complications leading to bacterial pneumonia and, unlike in past centuries, bacterial pneumonia today can be effectively treated with advanced medical care.
Another issue often disregarded in discussions of vaccine safety is the spread of vaccine-strain virus infections, including polio. Wild type polio was declared eradicated in the US in 1979 and in the western hemisphere in 1994.9 But despite widespread annual polio vaccine campaigns targeting children in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, the wild type poliovirus is still circulating.
The Global Polio Eradication Initiative slated 2018 as the year polio would be eradicated from the Earth, but the virus is proving to be harder to outwit than officials would have you believe. Not only are strains of wild poliovirus still circulating in the world, but mutated vaccine-strain polio viruses also circulate. A large part of the problem is the polio vaccine itself, specifically the live oral polio vaccine (OPV).
In 2017, there have been 21 reported cases of vaccine-derived polio, compared to six cases of wild polio — marking the first time more cases of polio have been caused by vaccine-derived strains than wild or naturally occurring strains. In Syria alone, 15 children have been paralyzed by vaccine-derived polio, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).10 Research published in the journal Cell also revealed that the live virus used in the oral polio vaccine can easily mutate and spread through a community.11 NPR reported:12
“After a child is vaccinated with live polio virus, the virus replicates inside the child’s intestine and eventually is excreted. In places with poor sanitation, fecal matter can enter the drinking water supply and the virus is able to start spreading from person to person.
‘We discovered there’s only a few [mutations] that have to happen and they happen rather quickly in the first month or two post-vaccination,” [lead study author Raul] Andino says. ‘As the virus starts circulating in the community, it acquires further mutations that make it basically indistinguishable from the wild-type virus. It’s polio in terms of virulence and in terms of how the virus spreads.'”
While news that the oral polio vaccine is causing vaccine-strain polio cases may be surprising to you, it is not surprising at all to WHO, whose director of polio eradication Michel Zaffran called the vaccine-derived virus outbreaks an expected “hiccup.” He told NPR:13
“We knew that we were going to have such outbreaks. We’ve had them in the past. We continue to have them now. We know how to find them, and we know how to interrupt them … So it’s hiccup … a very regrettable hiccup for the poor children that have been paralyzed, of course. But with regards to the whole initiative, you know it’s not something that is unexpected.”
Adding to the complexity surrounding the medical decisions you make for yourself and your children is the fact that much scientific research is manipulated or fraudulent. Former New England Journal of Medicine editor-in-chief Dr. Marcia Angell has stated, “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical researchthat is published.”14
In the video above, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson interviews Angell on the topic of “fake science.” Angell says, “… [P]hysicians and the public have come to believe that drugs are much better and much safer than they really are.”15 If you can’t trust the scientific data, neither can your physician, but most people make health care decisions based on their physician’s likely misguided advice.
In the case of vaccines, for example, many are not aware that the U.S. childhood vaccination schedule is based on convenience, not on safety. While your physician may tell you that giving your child multiple vaccines simultaneously is safe, think about this logically. According to Neil Z. Miller, a medical research journalist and director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute:
“The CDC’s immunization schedule requires that children receive eight vaccines at 2 months of age, eight vaccines at 4 months of age and eight vaccines at 6 months of age. I ask parents, ‘When did you ever take eight drugs at the same time?
… If you did take eight drugs at the same time, would you think it was more likely that you would or would not have an adverse reaction?’ Because toxicologists know that the more drugs you take at the same time, the more potential for some kind of a synergistic or additive toxicity …
The CDC has put together a schedule based on convenience. They say ‘[G]ive eight vaccines at 2 months, give eight more vaccines at 4 months and give eight more booster shots at 6 months’ because it’s convenient. They’re afraid that parents will not come to the pediatrician again and again and again if they have to keep coming back for more vaccines, so they get multiple [shots all at once].
They said, ‘We’re going to make this schedule based on convenience.’ Not based on evidence. Not based on science. There’s nothing scientific about the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule.”
It’s therefore crucially important to consider multiple sources of vaccine information and use reason, intuition and common sense when making an educated decision about vaccination. Only when you have all the facts, including those from unbiased, independent sources, and think critically can you make a truly informed decision for yourself or your child that will protect your health.
By Dr. Mercola
The Vaccine Reaction, published by the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), recently highlighted a really disturbing part of the 21st Century Cures Act that has largely escaped below the radar.
The 21st Century Cures Act, which was quickly pushed through Congress and became law back in December 2016, allows the waiving of the requirement of informed consent for participants in clinical trials if researchers believe an experimental medical device, drug or vaccine being tested poses no more than minimal risk to the patient’s health, or if the product being tested is deemed by researchers to be in the best interest of trial participants.
The Act also lowers FDA standards for the quality of evidence that drug companies have to provide to the FDA before drugs and vaccines are licensed and sold in the U.S.
In a nutshell, scientists testing pharmaceutical products like vaccines may now choose to experiment on human beings without obtaining informed consent first.
As noted in the featured video, this really boils down to slavery — you can be experimented on without fully understanding the potential risks of the product you are being given if you are a participant in a clinical trial, which means you do not have the opportunity to exercise informed consent and opt out.
Section 3024 of the 21st Century Cures Act refers to Informed Consent Waiver or Alteration for Clinical Investigations, amending some of the wording in section 520(g)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.
As noted in the video, subparagraph D in this section received a minor update by removing the words “the investigator,” but the remainder still stands.
Section 3024(a), which covers “medical devices,” basically states that informed consent is required when researchers are testing medical devises in clinical trials “except where, subject to such conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of the human subject.”
Section 3024(b), which covers drugs, states informed consent is required “except where it is not feasible, it is contrary to the best interests of such human beings, or the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to such human beings and includes appropriate safeguards as prescribed to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of such human beings.”
How giving informed consent could ever be contrary to your best interest is a question worth pondering.
I cannot conceive of a situation where that could possibly be true but, apparently, people elected to govern on our behalf believe there are situations warranting suppression of the fact that you are participating in a scientific experiment that could harm you or your minor child.
Historically, vaccine trials have always been assumed to involve more than minimal risk. In fact, both the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court have concluded that government licensed vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.”1
This determination was one reason given by Congress for why vaccine manufacturers were given a civil liability shield from vaccine injury lawsuits in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
This “free pass” means that if a FDA licensed and state mandated vaccine ends up injuring or killing you or your child, the vaccine manufacturer or the doctor who administered the vaccine cannot be sued in civil court.
As a result of having zero liability for harm arising from the use of their products, drug companies are creating hundreds of new vaccines and plan to churn out and fast-track an ever-growing number of poorly tested vaccines with dubious benefits.
At the same time, there’s a concerted, nationwide lobbying effort by industry, medical trade groups and public health officials to eliminate the right of parents to make voluntary vaccine choices for their children by removing religious and conscience vaccine exemptions that have been included in state vaccine laws for the past half century.
To top it all off, the 21st Century Cures Act appears to provide a mile-wide loophole for pharmaceutical companies to test their products on human beings without informed consent and fast-track them to market using lowered licensing standards. I don’t know about you, but this strikes me as an absolute nightmare in the making.
While vaccine makers have been granted immunity against lawsuits for injuries and deaths caused by vaccines, children injured by vaccines are supposed to be able to receive swift and just compensation from the federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP), created by Congress in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
However, this program was gutted by the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice within years of the 1986 law’s enactment and has only gotten worse over the years, again protecting vaccine manufacturers’ interests more than anything else.
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington DC handles contested vaccine injury and death cases in what has become known as “vaccine court.”2
VICP is a “no-fault” alternative to the traditional civil court lawsuit and was established in 1986 after a string of high-profile lawsuits by parents of vaccine injured children had hauled vaccine manufacturers into court to have their cases heard in front of juries.
At the time, parents were suing vaccine manufacturers after their children were brain injured or died following federally recommended and state mandated DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccines, or children were left paralyzed by live oral polio vaccinations (OPV).
Several DPT injury lawsuits against the vaccine makers in the 1970s and early 1980s resulted in multimillion-dollar jury verdicts.
At that point, vaccine manufacturers threatened to stop producing DPT, MMR and oral polio (the only childhood vaccines at the time) if civil litigation was allowed to continue.
Common sense would have dictated that such lawsuits were a sign that vaccine manufacturers needed to raise safety standards and produce less toxic vaccines.
Instead, Congress buckled to industry pressure and, declaring that the U.S. vaccine supply must be protected, passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, giving vaccine manufacturers the legal protection they demanded.
As a result, vaccine makers have no incentive to produce the safest vaccines possible, especially when many childhood vaccines are state mandated for school attendance and 2 out of 3 vaccine injured children are turned away from the VICP with no compensation.
Over the years, it has become quite clear that VICP doesn’t work as Congress intended or promised parents it would work. In a recent article published in The American Conservative, vaccine litigation lawyer Robert Moxley writes:3
“… [VICP] was modeled after workers’ compensation programs. It was to be a ‘no-fault’ program … As one of the earliest ‘vaccine attorneys’ … I know first-hand it didn’t work that way.
I practiced in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for more than 25 years after its inception in 1988, and have been personally involved in over 100 vaccine-injury cases. I represented an entire fragile population in omnibus proceedings … I have seen the injured and their families cruelly oppressed.
From the passing of the legislation in 1986, the process has been rigged … in favor of the vaccine-industrial complex. Policy makers nationwide are yearning, with financial support and lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry, for mandatory vaccination. Before further compulsory vaccination legislation passes … the failure of the VICP must be acknowledged and properly addressed.
The VICP creates a classic moral hazard, granting immunity from suit to the vaccine industry while providing insurance against any loss …The vaccine-industrial complex has become a thriving giant … Its lobbying money drives agency denial of the reality of vaccine injury, which in turn permeates policy decisions in a sinister fashion.”
As noted by Moxley, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act states the entire compensation process should take 240 days at most, and since it’s a “no-fault” program, it was designed to compensate patients for “apparent” injuries, meaning injuries that “appear” to be related to a vaccine even if you cannot conclusively prove it.
Congress promised compensation would be awarded “quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity,” in order to instill public confidence in the childhood vaccination program. The reality is much different. In his article, Moxley highlights a number of serious problems with the VICP, including the following:
Moreover, as noted by Moxley: “The ‘inquisitorial’ format, with none of the due process safeguards of the civil justice system, serves to protect the secrets of the vaccine industry. The record created in a proceeding is hidden from non-parties.”
Indeed, none of the information that would normally be disclosed during a court trial ever sees the light of day once brought before the VICP. Hence, safety concerns remain shrouded in secrecy.
“A state of symbiosis arose between the agency tribunal and the public health bureaucracy,” Moxley writes. “These sister agencies appeared to regard families of the injured as criminals, trying to steal the government’s money. The vaccine court quickly developed an institutional hostility toward doctors and scientists who dared to challenge the orthodoxy of vaccine medicine …
An unspoken premise is ever-present: [T]o acknowledge vaccine injury is to undermine public acceptance, and to threaten ‘herd immunity.’ The public health agenda is the tribunal agenda and the DOJ agenda as well …
The vaccine court is used by the vaccine program — ostensibly in service of the ‘public health’ — as a forum to prove that there is no such thing as a vaccine injury. ‘Confidence’ in the safety net has been subordinated to the promotion of false confidence in the vaccination effort itself.
The moral hazard of the vaccine program reflects failure of the traditional checks and balances … Most of all, the entire system embodies the way that the lack of accountability leads to increased risk. Today, the proponents of compulsory vaccination in state legislatures have the temerity to tell their colleagues that there is no such thing as a vaccine injury. This claim emboldens a potential assault on the American family, and against the right of medical choice and informed consent.
The ‘public health’ cannot be served to allow government officials to make the risk-benefit calculation for their most vulnerable constituents when those decisions are corrupted by the fiction that their decision has no potential for negative consequences.”
VICP compensates vaccine victims from a federal trust fund that collects a 75-cent surcharge on every vaccine given. What this means is that not only are drug companies profiting from selling federally recommended and state mandated vaccines to government for administration in public health clinics and to private doctor’s offices, pharmacies and HMO providers, vaccine manufacturers are also held legally blameless for vaccine injuries and deaths — and they don’t have to pay a cent to those injured by their vaccines.
Adult patients and children being given vaccines take all the risk, and themselves pay for the damages awarded to those injured or killed by government licensed and mandated vaccines. Many Americans do not even realize this vaccine court exists because DHHS does not publicize the existence of a federal vaccine injury compensation program and few VICP claims are ever disclosed, let alone publicized. The desire for secrecy on the part of public health officials is understandable.
If Americans were routinely informed of the vaccine injury and death claims being processed through the VICP, concern about the safety of vaccines would undoubtedly rise exponentially. Even without publicity, VICP claims are rapidly rising. As noted by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson in December 2015:5
“Since January of 2014, the number of flu vaccine cases conceded by the government is more than double the previous eight years combined … Also on the rise is the number of vaccine injury cases the government has ‘conceded:’ up 55 percent in a little over one year.”
Two years ago, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) called for the repeal of civil liability protection provided to drug companies under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act6 and a return to full product liability for vaccine manufacturers. At the time, NVIC co-founder and president Barbara Loe Fisher said:7
“The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act is a failed experiment in tort reform and should be repealed so vaccine manufacturers are accountable and liable in a civil court of law for product safety. The federal vaccine injury compensation program Congress created under that law has become a drug company stockholder’s dream and a parent’s worst nightmare.”
Nothing has changed in the two years since. The VICP remains irreparably broken. A vast majority of the injury compensation claims paid out by the vaccine court today are not even for children suffering lifelong injuries or death from childhood vaccines that they are mandated to get to attend daycare or school — they’re for adults (often health care workers) suffering serious side effects from the influenza vaccine.
On March 31, 2017, vaccine safety and choice advocates, including the NVIC, Moms Across America, Organic Consumers Association, Focus for Health, Vaccine Injury Awareness League and other grassroots consumer groups, who are protesting the too-cozy relationship between the pharmaceutical and chemical industries and government, gathered for a “Revolution for Truth” rally8 in Washington D.C.
The groups are urging President Trump to examine the VICP’s many problems, and create an independent agency to monitor and evaluate vaccine safety.
Last year, Gretchen DuBeau, executive and legal director for Alliance for Natural Health USA, wrote:9
“When health officials assure us that almost all children should receive the full schedule of vaccinations, you would think that rigorous safety testing has repeatedly proven vaccines, their ingredients, and the CDC schedule to be completely safe. The sobering truth is, however, that this safety testing has been conspicuously lacking and in many cases simply has not been done.
Until these extremely serious safety concerns are adequately addressed, it is unethical — and very possibly dangerous — to force children to be vaccinated.
Take aluminum, for example, which has been added to vaccines since the 1930s to help jolt the body’s immune system into action. Aluminum is a well-documented neurotoxin linked with Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, asthma, hyperactivity and Down’s syndrome. Despite these dangers, adequate clinical research proving aluminum adjuvants to be safe has never been done.”
Indeed, it is the lack of evidence of safety that concerns most parents who decide to delay or forgo one or more vaccinations for their children. Most of these parents have children who had serious reactions to vaccination or know someone who became chronically ill after vaccination. That experience prompted them to do independent research and not just get their children vaccinated without fully understanding the risks.
But rather than conducting the necessary methodologically sound scientific research to settle these uncertainties, the vaccine industry has chosen to join with medical trade associations funded by pharmaceutical companies and public health agencies and simply push for forced vaccination laws that eliminate vaccine exemptions instead. And why not? Forced vaccination guarantees maximum profits since there are no repercussions should their vaccines turn out to do more harm than good.
Aside from the lack of long-term safety studies of vaccines that take into account real-world usage parameters such as giving multiple vaccinations on the same day, there’s yet another safety issue that is routinely swept under the rug — that of vaccine recalls. In fact, vaccines have the highest number of recalls of any drug!
According to a 2012 report by business intelligence experts GBI Research,10 vaccines “fail to meet safety standards.” Between 2007 and 2010, 14 recalls for vaccines were made, for reasons such as:
As time goes on and vaccine injuries multiply, claims of “coincidence” are getting increasingly more preposterous and harder to swallow. Today, vaccine injuries are becoming like cancer — the prevalence is so high, most people know someone who has suffered a serious side effect from a vaccine. Statistics revealing compelling parallels between vaccination rates and disease rates add to the mounting skepticism.
As noted in a January 2017 report by WJTV12 News,11 Mississippi has one of the highest vaccination rates in the U.S. It also has one of the highest autism rates. Coincidence? No one knows, but in the absence of firm proof either way, many parents are renewing their call for the legal right to make voluntary decisions about which vaccines their child should receive and if or when they should be given.
The same scenario is playing out in other states across the nation. The numbers of children suffering with chronic illness and disability, including autism spectrum disorders, are increasing. The numbers of children and adults who have experienced serious vaccine reactions are also increasing. As a result, first-hand experience with vaccine reactions now include many physicians, celebrities and politicians, as well.
Academy award-winning actor Robert De Niro, for example, has recently gone on the public record questioning vaccine safety and the reported link between vaccines and autism.
He has a child who developed autism following vaccination. Rick Rollens, former Secretary of the California State Senate, as well as retired U.S. Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) are two examples of individuals who worked for government and publicly shared their personal experiences of family members who had serious vaccine reactions and developed autism.
President Trump has also made public statements in which he questioned the potential connection between vaccination and autism and the safety of one-size-fits-all vaccine policies.
All of them have been strongly criticized for attempting to open up discussions about vaccine risk issues, which just goes to show that no one is above ridicule should they dare to question the safety of vaccines. The trend cannot hold forever, though. At a certain point, the coincidence theory collapses, and that’s what we’re starting to see now.
Unfortunately, many people don’t wake up and get involved until it’s personal and, in recent years, we’ve seen a growing number of influential people describe their personal experiences with vaccine reactions. The question is, how bad does it have to get before public concerns about vaccine safety get a fair hearing?